Public Comment Process
See how New Yorkers like you helped inform the Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan.
Public Comment Process
See how New Yorkers like you helped inform the Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan.
Public Comments
View written and spoken comments from the public comment period to see what your colleagues and neighbors had to say.
| Full Name | Organization/Company | Comments | Files/Attachments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brian,Napoli | To: The Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communists in Albany and downstate. Obviously you are all out of touch with reality. Forcing these changes on upstate and crippling the livelihood of thousands of people. Also, forcing the cost of living so high that no one will be able to afford to live in this state. That is already obvious by the number of people that leave New York every year. From the last census, New York lost the most number of people. All that will remain are illegal aliens in NYC who will be here to take advantage of all of your "free" programs (health insurance, education, etc.) Along with giving away the state to criminals with the "Green Light Law". Then you wonder why the crime rate is so high. Next, crippling the agriculture industry, especially family farms, with your reforms. Have any of you ever been to a farm? Complaining that cows cause pollution by exhaling and creating waste? How about all of you stop exhaling and that will save the entire environment. The best remedy? Make upstate a state of its own and go away. None of you know anything about what happens North of Westchester County and West of Albany. | ||
| Timothy,Thomas | I completely and utterly am against this plan for NEw York State. I can’t believe this even seems like a logical plan to move ahead with “energy saving”. We are littered in our area with wind mills that haven’t been in operation for years, why would we try to get rid of natural gas?? In regions as rural as Orleans county this would be a death blow and most assuredly another form of taxation upon the poorer areas who depend on natural gas and such appliances…and do not get me started on the move to rid us of gas vehicles by 2035. Stop smoking the crack pipe folks, you tell us to not use gas cars but fly weekly to Washington on jets!!! It’s absolute hypocrisy. | ||
| Frank S.,Yuroshoski Sr. | LakeSide Enterprises | 2,000 character limit I could write a book about all that is wrong about this so I want you to imagine 1 thing in just one city. Most of the housing stock is close to 100 years old and many of them are not fit to retro fit for your grand green plan. Housing costs in the center city for a 2 family home range from the $70,000 - $125,000 most of these home's are occupied by lower income people with a 2 bedroom apt. ranging from $450.00 - $650.00 per month for rent and the tenant pays for heat & electric. So a few years down the road you expect me to invest $60,000 - $80,000 for 2 separate heat pumps plus the cost of installing 2 electric hot water heaters. So the tenants rent goes up 100% to off set my cost over 30 years and his electric bill doubles that is if he or she has any electricity. You people are off your rockers and doing more damage to the environment with your wind farms that don't work but enrich CHINA. It's very simple there is no man made climate change as you can not prove it and there is no consensus in science they are called facts something you do not have. Pass this stupid legislation and for me it's time to close my business, sell my real estate holdings while they have some value, take my family and money and leave this S**T hole of a state. Heat Pumps do not work well in the North East do your home work all you will do is destroy the real estate market & push people into poverty while they freeze. But I guess that is your intention now isn't it. | |
| ROBERT,KING | Have you lost your collective minds? Do you have any idea how much more expensive it is to run a home on electricity instead of natural gas? I'm retired, and living on a fixed income. How am I supposed to be able to afford a $60,000 electric car. The middle of the worst inflation in 40 years is not the time to tell people that they have to figure out how to live with a system that's going to cost them even more money. You elitist liberals sit there in Albany and think you have all the answer...and spend your time trying to fix problems that either don't exist or that you created in the first place. Case in point...liberal bail laws that are putting criminals and violence back on our streets. For those of us who live in the country, your big city ideas just don't make any sense. If this idea comes to fruition, it will be the final nail in the New York State coffin...and you will finally kill the Empire State. | ||
| Scott,Kuehne | This bill will destroy the economy and is insane. There is no climate crisis, just an economic crisis caused by neo-marxist climate warriors. This isn't California, if you want to live under communism please move there and don't attempt to destroy my state. NAY on all this crap | ||
| Carl,Coapman | Your leadership is the worst. These changes are short sighted, stupid, anti business, idiotic and contrary to the majority wish. It's a perfect example of knee jerk reaction to Woke. NYS is a bad shape now and will be in ruin if this legislation passes. You dopes won't allow fracking and now propose this. What drugs are you smoking. If everything goes electric, how are going to produce it? Solar- not here, Wind...those naturalists don't want the windstations in the water or in their back yard( oh those poor birds)..burn coal or nuclear? Come on. Sure turn up the hype so no water flows over the Falls | ||
| Steven ,Klips | Do any of you know how to read? All of Europe is backtracking on it’s green agenda because the technology doesn’t work on an industrial scale. But you think you are smarter than everyone , at the expense of the citizens of this state. You already have put us in a horrible position, just look at the numbers of people leaving, now you want to put the final nail in the coffin. I wish you idiots had the capacity to think for yourselves, instead of being led around by ideological morons, that are intent on destroying this country. This plan is plain stupid, being pushed by incompetent legislators. You should all be forced to live the way you propose before you make all of us. | ||
| John,Hill | The main point requirements of this unscientific proposal is inconceivable. Nuclear is the only viable clean energy and no one is talking about that. This is going to play out like the movie "Hunger Games" where New York City is number one and Cattaraugus County is waste land with a few windmills turning to produce electricity to power subways in NYC. Natural gas is abundant and clean burning. Rare earth metals and and lithium batteries are being consumed at a gluttonous rate to satisfy the "Green Energy" mandates. Natural gas will become a thing of past in NY along with freedom to work where you want to and live where you want. Slums will pop up everywhere because you will have to walk to work. Snowmobiling, Boating , Skiing , and hunting will disappear because you won't be able to get to places you need to because gas stations will go out of business. Our only options will to become Amish or move out of this insane dictatorial state. | ||
| Bret,Gardner | This is the dumbest thing I have read in a while you will gut the economy with this proposal | ||
| David,Eckert | You people need to get reaL jobs instead of spunging off of hard working taxpayers. Leave our energy alone! We want fossil fuels, we want natural gas. | ||
| Karen,Brown | May the rapture come quickly befor this Socialist government totally destroys America or may GOD's hand turn things around | ||
| Lalonnie,Sponeybarger | I am completely against this policy to remove natural gas as a resource in New York state. Your plan to step away from using it as a source of heat is ridiculous at best and criminal at it's worst. While we all need to conserve resources in our own lives, we should not allow the government to dictate how and when or how much gas we use. Gasoline for vehicles is necessary for travel, and deliveries. Electric cars are not a viable answer. God renews and sustains our natural resource not the government. In order to build a grid that sustains enough electric to power homes cars travel and deliveries for food etc the cost would be staggering. Beside that it takes natural resources for batteries for transportation, where are you going to get that from, the ground? No to all that is in this proposal . No No No. God forbid that you go against the poor the weak and defenseless. God will hold you accountable. | ||
| John,Opacinch | Stop trying to be the Leftist leader in a rapidly declining America. All your s---- laws do is hurt the urban dweller, wind power is a proven money loser and environmentally unfriendly in the long run. Solar is not yet technologically advanced to provide for an unrealistically large amount of electrical demand from forced purchasing of electric vehicles. What happened to America, who are you to force your ideals and schemes on the public! | ||
| Anthony,Sokal | Retired | This is another misguided fiasco being promoted by mindless liberals. Planning to rely on technology that has not been perfected is just the sort of idiotic plan I have come to expect from these people. Our democratic friends profess to care about the little people yet these plans will deal a crippling blow to those who can least afford it. Expensive gas prices caused by policies of the current administration are not a problem for the elected because they are rich or worse yet traveling in government vehicles and don’t pay for it. Or they are rich kids who have never had a job and daddy is paying their way. Look to California that has closed coal fired generating plants. Now they suffer brown outs because solar and wind Energy can’t meet the demand. Stop living in you liberal fantasy world. Allow fracking and production of fossil fuels. China and Russia aren’t going to stop polluting and we will be increasingly dependent on them and vulnerable, Wake up deadheads. | |
| lee,babcock | pnc | Dear Climate Change Leaders, I am wondering how the tyrannical climate policies intend to help support the people that can least afford, the foolish policies proposed by your climate council? How am I going to afford a 50000.00 electric car the 25000.00 infrastructure changes to my residence and pay the ongoing excess energy costs (which will triple) along with other tangible consequences that will occur from your plan? I clearly do not support the direction that NYS is taking with taxpayer monies and resources. I believe that you are representing an extreme group of individuals that have a lot to gain from fleecing taxpayers on every corner. What has happened to the once grand state of New York? The approach needed is not to force people to comply with extreme measures but to invest heavily in reducing the cost of electric cars and better lower cost clean technology. However, as President Biden and others have shown that they would rather force people to do these things by embracing policy that raises existing low-cost energy to the point where the new technology becomes permanently feasible. It is a shameful act in response to an unsettled/ongoing issue with climate fluctuation. As stated above you do not have my support on the proposed approach toward natural gas bans or forced electric car purchases. I am also interested in the sources for the increased electrical supply to run these extreme measures. One last point. People are not stupid. The pressure to show these results will bear out our actual preparedness/ability to achieve these mandates. Sincerely, NY Taxpayer. | |
| Tom,Schofield | I say NO to banning gas powered vehicles. I say NO to stopping natural gas drilling. I say NO to stopping the sales of natural gas appliances. I say yes to options, give people the option to buy gas operated vehicles or battery powered vehicles. As more manufacturers produce and sell environmentally friendly products and the cost goes down more people will gravitate to them. To jam this banning policy down peoples throats only breeds resentment. Like when I walk out of a store with five items in my hand because I can't put my items in a plastic bag in NY because plastbags are banned in NY, I curse the governor every time this happens and will never vote for ANY candidate that backs these policies. CHOICE, options not banning. Thank you for your time. | ||
| JOHN,HAMMOND | This entire proposal is nonsense and will destroy our economy. Communist China no doubt loves this crap we are doing to ourselves. They are the real threat. Wake up or be voted out. | ||
| Jacob,Marcy | Good afternoon everyone, I work as an Intensive Case Manager for Allegany County. My clients are in poverty and are struggling to make ends meet even at this very moment. They can't afford to make it to appointments with government assistance (a tax burden) and they can't afford their inflating rental prices. The very actions you have presented, like with banning natural gas service to existing homes and buildings by 2024, banning the sale of natural gas appliances by 2030, and banning the sale of gasoline powered automobiles by 2035, are all asinine and in vain. Unless you plan to give free things at the expense of the Democrat politicians themselves that are putting this mess up for a vote. In matter of fact, you will bankrupt this state more than the $6 billion in Medicaid debt which was cleared away by Democrats in the Federal government. You will starve New Yorkers in the state and put businesses out of business. These very things are traits of Communism. My clients will suffer for all of this for no reason. Stop your nonsense now! May God convict you of all your wrongs! | ||
| Edward,Koorse | This climate legislation will put a major financial burden to rural New Yorkers, who rely on Natural Gas, oil and propane to heat their homes and cook. There is no way that our power grid can handle changing to electric to provide heat, cooking and charging of electric vehicles. I suggest you people get your heads out of your butts and deal with realities! | ||
| Mark,Hendrix | Never say never, to say we will outlaw and ban any type of fuel source is ridiculous and narrow minded. Especially when people and business can make a choice to leave NYS or decide to never move to NYS because of government overreach. If this law passes god help this state, you as a government have chosen to become a socialist state, capitalism will be dead. Ask Germany, Venezuela or Cuba how socialism is working for them. Stop the over reach, let markets and people decide what fuel source makes the most sense for NYS. | ||
| Robert,Brushingham | mY WHOLE HOUSE IS RUN ON NATURAL GAS ALL MY APPLYANCES. IT WILL DEVASTATE ME IF I HAVE TO REPLACE ALL OF THEM. IFTHE SUN DON'T SHINE AND THE WIND DON'T BLOW WHAT WILL I DO. gET A RELIABLE SOURCE OF POWER BEFORE YOU START THIS CRAP. I WAS A BOILERMAKER FOR FORTY YEARS AND IN THE SEVENTYS WE BUILT PERCIPATATERS TO TAKE THE FLY ASHE OUT. IN THE EIGHTIES WE BUILTSCRUBERS DO DO MORE CLEANING. IN THE NINTIES WE BUILY CATALICTIC DEVICES TO DO MORE. THE EMISSION WERE NILL THEN THEY SHUT THE ALL DOWN. I HOPE THEY MOTHBALLED THEM BECAUSE WE WILL NEED THEM DOWN THE LINE. DO SOME RESEARCH. | ||
| Ashley,Heil | Absolutely not. You all are b------- f------ crazy. This WILL be the last straw. Goodbye NY, hello Florida. And I’m taking my six figure income and tax contributions with me | ||
| Keith,Hofler | I disagree with everything proposed or already in progress. You people in Albany should be ashamed of yourselves and the disgrace you have Brighton the once great state of NY. --- in ----. | ||
| KEITH,CONOVER | conover | The people in charge live in a f------ dreamworld and appear to be r------- | |
| craig,speers | The 2019 Act is illegal and unconstitutional in every way. As a practical matter it destroys the ability of local governments to control development within their own jurisdictions. It allows a state agency i.e.: the State Siting Board to override decisions made, and local laws enacting governing the installation of industrial wind tower farms and Communist Chinese made solar panel farms. In essence if town or village boards decide that it is in the best interests of the citizens of those municipal governments not to allow the construction, installation and operation of industrial wind towers and Communist Chinese manufactured solar panel farms, this act allows a state agency, the Siting Board to over rule the elected officials of said town or village. That is an oppressive, disgraceful and unacceptable concept denying home rule rights to NYS towns and villages. Secondly, there is no mitigation envisioned to alleviate the massive environmental damage that the industrial wind farms and Communist Chinese manufactured solar panel farms will cause to the natural world in upstate New York. Beautiful landscapes permanently marred; forests, meadows destroyed by concrete foundations; residents subjected to light flicker and sound pollution; wildlife habitats destroyed; bird populations destroyed by blade movements; fields of wheat, corn, hay and soybeans replaced by Chinese Communist solar panels. This is a story of massive environmental degradation all across upstate New York. In addition we have completely inappropriate and illegal provisions banning the use of wood stoves, and wood pellet furnace heating systems; and natural gas fired forced air and hot water heating systems, all of which are in common use in upstate New York. This is no more than a socialist, statist attempt control citizen choice in how to heat their urban and rural upstate homes. Lastly, we need to repower. restart and rehab all upstate power plants, immediately. | ||
| linda,schmalfuss | NO to refusing affordable gas/energy for us by placing regulations that would increase costs. Where is the justice for the brave women who were sexually assaulted by former Gov. Cuomo? Who paid the judges off? Remove the bail reform bill. | ||
| James,McMahon | All the politicians partaking in climate scam should be *********, and be found guilty **************! Then should then be ******* to remind any communist that wants to try and destroy our country that they will pay a steep price. | ||
| Tim,Stockman | New York Climate Action Council will join the Democrat lead state government in making the state unaffordable for millions of hard working people. If your proposed energy plans are adopted, a mass exodus will take place like never seen before! There are no current energy sources that can take the place of natural gas. Nothing is cleaner and more affordable than natural gas and we have plenty of it. Wind turbines and solar panels are NOT clean energy. They cost more to manufacture and install than they can ever offset in energy production. They are pure foolishness and couldn’t exist without massive taxpayer subsidies. The destruction of our woodlands, hills and farm land to install these snake oil projects is a crime in itself. Then, there is the question of how to decommission this junk at the end of their short life span. YOU CAN NOT ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUELS UNTIL YOU HAVE A REAL ENERGY ALTERNATIVE! Wind and solar is not it! The fact is, there are no alternatives right now to fossil fuels that can produce the amount of energy needed. You people are completely out of touch with the average person and your pie in the sky ideas will make New York unaffordable for families and for business. New York has been experiencing population decline for decades because of high taxes and the cost of living here. You haven’t seen anything yet if you adopt these asinine climate plans. | ||
| David,Burns | The Burns Agency Also Personally David J Burns | This entire project is ridiculous! A group of politicians trying to outdo other states, that is all. We all want cleaner air, water, etc. Putting these timelines on transformation are asinine. My house, my business, my two daughter's houses are heated with natural gas. My house was built in 1867 and my daughter's in about 1830. We CANNOT heat our houses with electricity. It makes NO Sense to even suggest it. Please come up with projections (not from the group proposing this) but from National Grid etc engineers as to how much electricity will be needed if followed through and where the hell is it going to come from? And how much will it cost? And by the way on a world scale if this is put in place and China continues to build coal plants, what is the % of Global CO2 that we will be able to reduce. Would the world be better off spending our money having China put in Natural gas as % of reduction and we sell them the gas to run everything? Seems the CO2 % may actually be reduced then as opposed to this suggestion. This is the worst suggestion I have ever seen in NY State. If this is passed we won't have to woory about anything as no one will be here. Thanks, David J Burns | |
| VIRGINIA,EVANCIEW | This is the most DUMBEST - STUPIDEST - thing I ever heard of. I thought Children who went to College to get degrees were intelligent, however after reading this stupidity it tells me many in Our World have no BRAINS any more. I am old - IF IT IS NOT BROKE - DO NOT FIX IT. Why is it People today cannot get their MINDS to be working on more Important Issues. Many Veterans gave their Lives for All and many come home amputations - needing homes and help - DO SOMETHING FOR VETERANS. Many Mentally ILL people are on streets of every street in all states - Open Psychiatric Centers get these people the help they need. Give Cars to those in need - stop building all these car washes - Get CATHOLIC SCHOOLS back open where children get a EXCELLENT EDUCATION. ****************************** Get the Laws turned back around to the 1960's and 1970's. GET RID OF NO BAIL REFORM LAW. If people cared about others they would be more concerned about what is going on in the world. And Climate Change issues are DUMB. Mother Nature controls the weather so stop spending all Money on Stupidity. | ||
| Steven,Jones | ABSOLUTE MORONS!!! THE FACT THAT ANYONE ON EARTH WOULD EVER THINK THAT THESE POLICIES AND IDEAS ARE REASONABLE AND LOGICAL SHOULD BE ********* AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO RID THE POPULATION OF MORONS THAT ARE ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY LIFE AS WE KNOW IT IN NEW YORK STATE. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASS AND FOCUS ON REAL ISSUES AFFECTING NEW YORK STATE AND HOW YOUR LUNATIC POLICIES ARE FORCING PEOPLE OUT OF STATE IN SEARCH OF A NORMAL LIFE NOT RUN BY A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE F------ MORONS WITH NO GRASP OF REALITY. WAKE UP MORONS!!! | ||
| Michael ,Lagree | What the h--- is wrong with you people? You have bought into the Climate Alarmists agenda and now you are try to force that down the throats of New Yorkers. Stop the madness! Fossil fuels are a necessary evil in our state, country and world. American technology and ingenuity have done a great job to make fossil fuel products cleaner and more efficient. None of this climate change garbage means anything until China and India joins the effort to reduce carbon emissions. We pay way more in taxes in New York than we should and your green delusions are neither wanted or needed here. I will oppose your leftist "Green New Deal" initiatives at every turn. You can take that to the bank! Michael Lagree | ||
| Kenneth,Niles | This whole plan is a fools errand, from start to finish. We already live in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the US. The idiots in Albany want everybody to go electric on everything from heating our buildings down to running our weedeaters. Where is all this electricity going to come from? The aging power grid in NY is at it's capacity and beyond at this point, it will certainly be insufficient for this pipe dream. Before retirement I worked in the ready mix industry and every time we had a hot day in the summer, NYSEG came and told us we had to shut down our crushing plant to prevent brownouts, does this sound like a power grid that will run literally everything in this state? I, as well as any reasonable person would say, "NOT HARDLY'. I guess you idiots in Albany want to see a huge mass exodus to states that are run with common sense, rather than leave NY well enough alone. I have heard the clowns in Albany talk of a 55 cent gas tax added to the already sky high taxes in this state, another reason to move out of this state. I have lived here for 71 years and am always reluctant to tell people I meet, where I am from, as it is embarrassing. This used to be called the Empire State, the only empire here is the empire of liberal idiots. I guess they want the state to themselves as no honest hard working people are going to stay here with these foolish policies. Wind and Solar may be a supplemental alternative but not for 100% of our power needs. This is just a liberal *** ****. Say NO to this ridiculous FOOLS ERRAND. | ||
| Walter,Surdak | The Democrats can stick their climate initiative up their socialist a-----. Why should we pay for China's growth? And why isn't India and Indonesia participating? | ||
| Sam,Latona | To even consider this "plan" is the stupidest thing government has ever done! I'm not surprised because it is the stupid state of NY. The USA could go to your idiotic zero emissions and NOTHING would change because of china, india, and brazil. All you need to do is look at the air at the last few olympics to figure that out. So you brainiacs think you're going to save the world by costing hard working or retired people another arm on top of the leg you already steal in property, school, sales and gas taxes? THINK AGAIN! NYS lost population again just like it has for the last 50 years. Anyone left in nys can turn out the solar lights because people will leave to go elsewhere. I won't be that last person and I'll give the middle finger salute as I cross the state line. | ||
| Jaylynn Knoll | I do not want the ban to happen why take away our freedom so this s---- --- government can do what they please. This is our way of life with wood stoves and bonfires and cutting wood. Why would you take that away from everyone, what needs to be done is to get rid of the government that is in power and restart with people who actually care about their people instead of just money! The people who are working their a----off barely make ends meet while the people on unemployment and welfare make more than enough but the working class has to pay for their taxes! | ||
| John Myers | As a life long resident of Oswego County I am sick to my stomach at the thought of government telling me I cannot provide wood heat to heat for my home. I live on a wooded land and the only way I can afford heat is wood off my land. The government has become a dictatorship in regulating rules especially to poor working folks. I’ve been to wood burning meetings before where legislators look down on poor economically depressed people. I’m tired of it and let it be known I will not stop burning wood to heat my house and will take what ever means necessary to continue doing so. I pay my taxes every year on time and slowly getting taxed off my land. My response is. “I pay my taxes when due†F--- the government’s idea on what I heat with ! John R. Myers | ||
| Jack Jordan | You people are insane idiots , you want to cripple what's left of N.Y.'s dying economy, with no regard to the people in the rural areas of the state , all while China continues to destroy the environment with not a peep from you frauds !! | ||
| George Prockup | are you people OUT OF YOUR F------ MINDS? to think you could prohibit/minimize/regulate wood burning ? I personally will be the watch dog for the "do as I say, not as I do" bunch..... and I thought TX was bad..... George Prockup | ||
| Gary Gilch | The government body of NY should be thrown in prison for crimes against the general population who love God,guns,wood and Donald Trump. Coming soon will be the end of the Democratic Party. Hopefully you will be tried for your idiotic ideas | ||
| Ralph Luce | Tax payer | If you propose the wood burning band on homes more people will leave New York State dummies including me cut this ovary s*** out | |
| Zach Roberts | So instead of allowing home owners to use wood to heat their homes you're all going to force New Yorkers to rely on gas, and electric for heat? Seems like a brilliant idea, as thousands of NYers are barely able to scrape by and now they're going to be forced to come up with more money to heat their homes. I'm thrilled that my wife and I are leaving this s------ state. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Board In contraversion of your name you do not do research nor energy development so "scoping" ties in well with the main thrust of your work, namely looking at the media to see how the climate wind is blowing. Here is something worth scoping: January 3, 2022 the Wall Street Editorial Board reported that the EU announced that nuclear and natural gas are a necessary part of the energy solution and will be added to the list of approved environmentally sustainable investments." Thr EU has thus joined Russia, India and China in endorsing fossil fuels giving uou the scope to restore the grid and send your wind turbine plans to storage. Jack Joyce CAWTILE Board Member |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I think the wind turbines in Lake Erie would be very detrimental to the environment. Below are my reasons not listed in any particular order.. Disruption of the water by digging through old (possible contaminated) soil to place footing and cables for them. Disruption of fish habitat and migration due to these obstacles and changing currents Birds hitting the blades killing water foul and other birds migrating over the lake The threat of contamination to the water due to mechanical leaks from them The disruption andinterference of radar that would hinder border security I can't imagine that turbines in the lake would be profitable to taxpayers. The only ones profiting would be the manufactures, shippers, installers and maintenance workers. The cost to manufacture one of them has to be large. Then add the huge cost of shipping these over land and then water, the cost of placing footings in 70 to 90 feet of water and running cable, cost of barges with cranes and manpower to erect them, The cost of constant maintenance and blade replacement and the inability to recycle the blades when they reach their life span. I would love to know the COMPLETE cost of just placing one of these in the lake and how many years it would have to generate to equal that cost. Dennis Buczkowski Orchard Park, NY |
||
| Kevin Gardner | Support of the exploration of ways to help homeowners and business better insulate and air seal their buildings would be a way to reduce emissions by reducing wasted heating fuel, whether they be wood, oil, gas or electric. A good way to do this is to create a practice to provide funding for these projects at a no or low cost to end user and make it available to the majority of income levels not just the low end as these types of grants are generally structured. Window replacement, insulation, roofing, lighting systems, appliance upgrades, HVAC upgrades should all be considered for eligibility for a grant program to help homes and business adapt to the climate councils plan. | ||
| Dennis King | I got wind of some information regarding the consideration of banning the use of woodstove and fireplace burning in NYS. I am all for reducing carbon emissions, cutting blatant pollution. But any consideration of banning woodstoves/fireplaces seems like a serious overreach. First, there are alot of people in rural counties who depend on wood and to a lesser degree, fireplaces, for heat. Without those sources, people would really be in serious hardship, having to either buy oil, propane, etc which currently is very expensive. Any idea about converting to all electric heat is not practical yet. The grid probably cannot handle the load. Furthermore, other folks rely on wood as a backup heat source in case of outages. I have a building permit and an EPA certified stove which drastically cuts down on emissions. In summary, please do not draft a law that is not enforceable or begins to appear vastly intrusive in telling the citizens of NYS just how they can heat their homes. That should be left to the individual liberty of each citizen. I am in agreement that any NEW installs should definitely require a permit and utilize a carbon reduction system. All CURRENT installations that have building permits and EPA certification should be Grandfathered in. If you want to begin to reduce this type of heating, consider then not granting a building permit to install. But those who have been using wood as a heating should be allowed to continue particularly if they have an EPA certified stove. | ||
| david forrester | You can shove your act Im going to burn wood and you cant enforce this. Stop overreacting and trying to shove your agenda down everyone's throat. | ||
| William Stevens | If the shoe doesn’t fit, must we change the foot? Gloria Steinem The government keeps making life harder this is why so many people are moving out a New York State. I used to love it here but the politicians apparently our extremely prejudice on who they want to be a New York State citizen. | ||
| Arthur Yannotti | There are a lot of issues with this report, but I will discuss only a few. There is little or no analysis in the report on how adopting this plan will impact energy costs on individuals or businesses. I expect that the economic costs will be high adding further to the unfavorable and uncompetitive business climate in New York. The plan includes requiring heat pumps for all new residential installations. There is a reason why heat pumps are uncommon in New York. They don't work well in cold climates that New York has. There is no discussion in the plan on this. What is the technology for storing electricity from solar and wind sources? A lot of talk on this but how will it be done? With all the emphasis placed in the plan on all electric vehicles and building heating in the plan, there is not enough discussion whether capacity exists in local and regional power grids to handle the large increase in electric consumption. How much investment would be required to upgrade the power grid? There is no estimate of this. The proposal to eliminate wood for home heating is unfair to people in rural areas that rely on it. I always thought that wood is a renewable resource and not a fossil fuel and should be considered that way. Vermont has reached an opposite conclusion from New York in this area. | ||
| Jason Coppolo | If you plan on banning wood as a source of home heat you better print more of that free money to pay for home heating bills. You people are power hungry and borderline insane. You are setting up a scenario that you are not prepared for | ||
| Matthew Snyder | This plan is untenable in most of NY. Most families do not have the resources to afford electricity as a source of heat for their homes. Our electrical grid will not have the capacity to sustain the extra use of electricity. How was there not more notice on such a draconian bill? There is more to the state than Buffalo, Albany and NYC. Do better. | ||
| Darryl Barr | On-Site Firewood | As someone who has lived in Upstate NY their whole life, burning wood for heat is not only a way of life, it is a matter of survival. Winters up here can be long, cold and brutal. With the current rising costs of heating oil, propane and natural gas, it is becoming increasingly difficult for folks on fixed incomes to safely heat their homes without using wood burning as a supplement. There is NO such thing as a zero emissions way of heating. Everything requires an energy expenditure of some sort. It requires a tremendous amount of energy to drill for oil, ship that oil, refine that oil into fuel, then ship it to a distributor to finally be burned for heat. Same with propane and natural gas, pellets, biomass or any other type of fuel. Geothermal requires electricity, which relies on coal or nuclear fired power plants to generate power. Solar and wind are far too unreliable and do not generate anywhere near the volume of electricity required to power homes and businesses (as proven in Texas last winter). The temperatures in the North country get dangerously low in the winter, particularly when wind chill gets factored in. It is 100% unacceptable to expect Northern New Yorkers to heat exclusively with with a non-renewable resource like fossil fuels. Wood is a renewable resource and is therefore more carbon neutral than any other type of fuel used for heat. The Utopian notion that certain public figures attempt to push forth is fantasy land at best and downright dangerous at its worst. | |
| Molly Smith | I'm in favor of reducing carbon emissions, but banning people from having gas furnaces, stoves, dryers, or burning wood is going too far. Not all of us can afford to completely change out heating and air conditioning systems. This will put an undo burden on the poorest among us, who don't make enough to even file taxes. Heating with electricity is substantially more expensive than gas in a state where heat is a necessity in our winters. Many people have natural gas whole house generators for long term electric power outtages. These prevent damage from sump pump back ups, loss of food, and provide heat when it's cold that also prevent pipes from freezing and bursting, plus there are people who depend on having electric for life saving equipment. What will happen if you ban this, too? Banning burning wood is going to far also. Does this mean people can no longer have wood burning fire places, pellet stoves? You are looking at the wrong areas to be concerned with. Concentrate on vehicle emissions and businesses that pollute our environment, who are driving thus problem. But, maybe you won't because they contribute large amounts of money to campaigns. | ||
| Megan Fox | If any of you are going to try and ban or limit hearing private homes with wood you are out of your minds. This is a direct attack on poor New York residents who depend on wood stoves and fireplaces for heat. All talk of this should cease immediately. People are not going to be dictated to by Albany about how we hear our homes. If you think penalizing people for burning wood for heat is going to encourage anyone to be "greener" you have something wrong with your heads. Keep it up. 2022 midterms can't come fast enough. | ||
| Sheryl Prieto | I live in a rural area. I don't want to use just electricity for my power. I want to continue to use propane or natural gas to heat my home. I also don't want those nasty wind turbines anywhere near me. When looking for my home I traveled to Cherabusco, NY. That town was ruined by the huge, ugly, noisy, strobing wind turbines. I wouldn't even consider purchasing a home there. Home prices will surely fall from those as they are a complete eyesore. I want cheap, clean natural gas. | ||
| Chris Bury | As many countryside folks who depends wood as primary heat can't go to propane or gas which cost more to install to heat or limit income. Maple syrup producers use wood as main source to boil maple syrup. For the city like NYC, should cut down amount of cars allowed of city folks own. Gas is still the cleanest heat source if have burners tune in. | ||
| Julie Weaver | A lot of people in upstate New York depend on wood heat for heating their homes and, I feel it should be each and, everybody's personal right to choose what they wish to heat their home with, some people just simply can't afford to heat their homes with anything else thanks to the extreme prices for gas, propane, natural gas or what have you... | ||
| Peter,Hatch | Dear Climate Council, New York State covers a very large geographical area. While the largest population concentration in in NYC, much of the rest of the state is quite rural. What is good for one area may not be so good for the other. I feel eliminating natural gas usage would bring undue hardship on rural NY while while having little affect on the environment. Just a handful of years ago natural gas was touted as a clean energy. It is certainly much cleaner than fuel oil, wood or coal for heating our homes. Even motor vehicles have converted to natural gas due to the cleaner emissions. Please reconsider your proposal to eliminate natural gas in rural, upstate NY. Thank-You, Peter M. Hatch, Jr. | ||
| John,Keevert | I hope you will hold firm on zeroing out emissions from electricity generation by 2040. We need to use regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. It is counterproductive that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets should be enforced, and we need targets for siting of renewables. Of course the goal is building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. We should ease opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. I see value in having targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pairing solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. I hope you consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. With access to two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. We will need more investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. It is extremely counterproductive to consider blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. To me such alternatives are entirely unacceptable since they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure | ||
| Dean,Gross | Absolute nonsense. No gas appliances? The majority of people do NOT have the electrical service amperage necessary to support adding electric oven\range, electric water heater, electric furnace. Who is going to pay to upgrade a house's electrical service to 150 or 200 amps necessary? 85% of New York's electrical is provided by natural gas. | ||
| Leean,Koch | Gas emissions should be reduced but you have to build up the new resources before you start ! There is no need to get ride of natural gas OR propane.....the supply of electricity and the failure of delivery is what should be looked at. How many black outs did we have this year? You want to put more need on the grid? Electric cars are great but I certainly can NOT afford one. Don't put the cart before the horse.....look what happened when The Government shut down the pipe line. Think People!! | ||
| Cathleen,Jacinto | Steel Tube Institute | We strongly advocate the inclusion of all building materials in the NY Climate Action Plan. We oppose the current draft that requires only structural steel, concrete rebar, glass, and mineral wood board insulation to meet minimum GWP standards. It is imperative that concrete (not only rebar), concrete masonry, clay masonry, and all wood construction products be included to meet minimum GWP standards in the NY Climate Action Plan. | |
| Kristina,Fontanetta | This plan has absolutely no plan for energy security. Cutting natural gas is taking away the consumers choice! Appliances, vehicles, ect. Natural gas has a 99% reliability rate for delivery and is resilient. Cutting a clean fuel like natural gas is a poor choice and is outrageous. Living in NY and having the ability to have natural gas is a great asset. WE SAY NO TO THE GAS BAN! | ||
| Isabela,Cruz-Vespa | Bard college | Price carbon, using a fee and dividend structure to effectively internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions across sectors. It is most fair for a carbon price to start low and gradually rise each year, and must apply to all sectors of the economy. New York’s current strategy, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), only prices the electricity sector and impedes the electrification of buildings and transit. Adhere to the most stringent greenhouse gas reduction scenario (Scenario 4) in the draft scoping plan. Climate change is a personal issue for each and every one of us. A scenario that gambles our livable futures away through reliance on highly uncertain “negative emissions technologies” and anything less than rapid and complete decarbonization of all emitting sectors acts in direct disservice to all New Yorkers. New York must lead on climate with bold commitments and relentless efforts to achieve zero emissions fully and equitably by 2050. | |
| Margaret,Shomers | Your plan is garbage! There is nothing going on that we taxpayers need to have control of! Grow up and help the country stop Biden and I’ll like him from ruining our wonderful nation! Ban all green deals like this crap!!! | ||
| Martin,Enseleit | This is the most lamebrain plan I have ever seen. I have used an electric vehicle previously and it was totally useless for rural use and even worse in the cold winters we have. It also increased my electric bill dramatically to the point where I stopped using my house electric heaters. I will stick with using fuel oil for heat and gas for my vehicles. I couldn't take a camping trip with an electric truck unless I took an entire month to get anywhere. Stupid plan. Keep usung gas and go back to drilling in the USA | ||
| Mark,Petzold | I have uploaded an Apple Pages file with my comments. | has attachment | |
| Glenn,DeFrancesco | Oak Valley Logging, Inc. | The forest products industry has supported my family for over 25 years. Over the course of my career, I have been called back to manage the same properties multiple times. That speaks to the sustainability of the forest as a resource. With proper management, the forest is one of our most effective tools in reducing carbon emissions. Having strong markets for all parts of the tree is a key driver in how well a forest can be managed. Being able to sell firewood is crucial to our industry. The lowest grade wood and the very top of the tree is what is used for firewood. Having to leave those behind in the woods because there is no market for it will result in an overgrowth undesirable wood as well as a forest fire hazard. Forests in NY are among some of the highest regulated and best managed in the country already. With continued support for our logging industry, we can play a major role in reducing carbon emissions for many years to come. | |
| Mary Ann,Schifitto | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| James,Steinkirchner | Below are common sense rules that our country needs to consider. Recent events in Europe should highlight the need for these rules. 1 We need to be energy independent both the grid and vehicles 2 We want energy 24/7 3 We need to be food supply independent 4 We need to be semiconductor independent 5 We need to be military equipment, systems independent 6 We need to be medical, medicine independent 7 We need to be rare earth element independent Exceptions can be made for a few other friendly nations. I think everyone is for renewable energy however is seems that there is an elephant in the room that gets ignored. We expect energy 24/7. Peak energy consumption in the USA is ~3PM-10PM. The same people that want renewable energy are against nuclear power plants also. Solar panels produce energy ~8 hours per day (~9AM-5PM). Look up a graph. The amplitude of the energy output is reduced when cloudy. It is significantly reduced when the panels are covered with snow. Many of the panels are produced in China. The hours of energy production are reduced Nov-Jan as the daylight hours are shorter. Rule #1-2 are violated. Wind power is fine but again, the wind is not always blowing. Lake Ontario is like glass sometimes. Wind dies down at night. Many components of wind turbines are from China. Rule #1-2 are violated. So if we are moving all the wattage produced by gasoline car engines to the electrical grid we would need a massive buildup of power plants. What type are they to be? The obvious limitations of solar and wind are mentioned above and nuclear and coal and gas are not allowed. How many years does it take to build a power plant? Natural gas production has reduced its methane problem by 68% in the last 3 years with technology advances. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel and is plentiful. To eliminate its usage is short sited if not just plain stupid. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. We need some common sense politicians in this state. | ||
| Logan,Tondini | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the waste sector, which accounts for 12% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, New York must enact policy immediately to reduce landfill waste, divert organic waste, and encourage sustainable use of materials. These policies must equitably serve New York residents. The final scoping plan must: Immediately implement “by request only” single-use materials in restaurants. A statewide “by request only” policy must be administered for single-use items with a requirement of reusable or refillable options. Single-use items, such as utensils and dishware in restaurants, can be phased out in favor of multi-use items that will reduce landfill waste. Rapidly end single-use packaging. Single-use packaging must be phased out and eliminated in retail stores and other locations, as it contributes to landfill waste consisting largely of non-recyclable material. Expand container deposit programs and incentives for proper recycling. Container deposits must be increased throughout the state. Increased container deposits incentivize the collection and recycling of recyclable materials through a comparatively streamlined process. | ||
| John,Keevert | I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into developing the scoping plan, and I like the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. A very high priority is an accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out if we want accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can also be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. It is clear to me that we must however accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and thus set the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To get more rapid adoption of EV’s, we need a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Also helpful is easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. EV adoption will be aided by adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. Besides NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit must be greatly expanded so more people can function without cars. I ask that we consider a Smart Growth strategy along transit corridors. If long haul buses and trucks aren’t fully electric, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities that suffer now from excess pollution. | ||
| Christopher,Keniston | C. Keniston Builders | I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. My wife and I also built a new home in 2017, installing a state-of-art propane condensing boiler which costs over $30,000 to install. We also followed current building codes requiring extensive insulation, along with energy efficient doors and windows. As a result, our home is comfortable and cheap to heat. I have owned homes with electric heat in the past and am very doubtful I could even come close to the cost of heating my current home as reasonable as I do now, nor is electric heat as comfortable as my current system. I would never want to be required to convert my current system to electricity! Thank you for allowing my input in this matter. | |
| Katie,Rygg | Color Penfield Green | To the Climate Action Council: My name is Katie Rygg. I am a mom and a climate advocate. We must do everything in our power to transition away from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible in the transportation sector. I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a ZEV State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on ICE vehicles to subsidize purchase of ZEVs. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies, including mobility-oriented development. Thank you, Katie | |
| John,Gebhards | Climate Action Project | To the Climate Action Council: Comments on Transportation Chapter 11 I am John Gebhards and live in Newburgh, NY 12550. I am retired and am a climate advocate with the Climate Reality Project. I purchased a 2021 Cooper Mini SE all electric car a year ago. It has been a wonderful vehicle for us. Let the masses know! We still have our hybrid car but the myth of a shortage of charging points has not deterred us from using this vehicle for 90% of our driving needs and we only charge it overnight from our outdoor 110 volt outlet. There is plenty of negative information about EVs but we find our friends and neighbors know basically nothing about the real utility of EVs. This lack of general knowledge needs to be better addressed in the Transportation Chapter 11. I wholeheartedly support incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. I encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan. Sincerely, John Gebhards | |
| Sue,Westoven | [email protected] | Processing radioactive uranium and lithium to make green energy products will contaminate land and water supplies. The USA already has the lowest carbon emissions on earth. We still need fossil fuels to operate the power grid. EV cars are too expensive. Cost to replace the battery when they die is $12,000 to $15,000. Unless the grids can use geothermal energy they will still pollute just as much as the gas powered vehicles. I do not support eradicating gas appliances or gas powered vehicles. A 13 year expectation will only cause chaos and no one is prepared to receive this type of insult to their salaries! Seems like the Democrats are only thinking about their stock profits! | |
| Lou Anne,DaRin | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield Resident | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | |
| Jon,Randall | Town of Webster, NY | I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles to help accelerate the transition. I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan! | |
| Brady,Fergusson | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions by electrifying the State vehicle fleet and reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs. I encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales and other appropriate places in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent them from harming disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| Timothy,Benson | This plan has a worthy goal, but the plan is fat from practical for many parts of our state. Electric vehicles are not practical for many rural areas, in cities there are no practical ways for electric vehicles to be charged in high density population areas. until we have a proven practical way to store energy, we are shifting carbon emissions from the tailpipe to the generating plant. Removing natural gas heating from homes will create much higher costs for the people who can least afford it, along with the rest of us. This plan is not realistic. Please consider rejecting this plan, especially the ban on sales of internal combustion cars and removing natural gas from residential and businesses, at least in the time frame in this document. | ||
| SUSAN,SCHIRMER | In reference to the CAC's proposals of: No new gas service to existing buildings beginning in 2024, THIS is ridiculous, it is a safe, affordable energy service, which I would always want as an option for heating, cooking, etc. for my home. No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024, once again I want that option & choice, affordable energy sources. No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating or drying beginning 2030, again ridiculous that we would be forced into not having a choice on our daily lives. No gasoline auto sales by 2035-lucicrous. The emission standards are well up to what they should be, there is no reason (also our own US sources are reliable & well up to industry standards, not having to depend on foreign sources. Travel with a gas vehicle is environmentally safe with all the emissions standards & convenient. The electric cars are exceptionally costly & take at least 45 minutes of charging to travel minimum miles. NOT TO MENTION JOB, EMPLOYMENT, COMPANY LOSSES FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE. | ||
| Bruce,Bennett | Retired | Though I understand the “science” of Global warming. The planet’s threat by carbon emissions is overstated. Carbon itself is not the whole problem and should not be demonized as such. The real worry should be world pollution of many different chemicals being spewed into the air. What good will it do to work on saving the planet if the people on the planet all die from pollution . It is wrong headed and misaimed to attack just one element (carbon emissions) that are so necessary for our infrastructures and protection of country against hostile forces. We already know many countries are not going to adhere to our carbon emissions rules. Therefore, what do we hope to gain? There are many chemicals that are harmful to humans being spewed all over the world, and no one is going to stop it! Yet, we think by attacking the one element that is supremely needed by both humans and plants we will save mankind. How shortsighted and arrogant. | |
| Quincy,Ross | LAND USE, AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. Addressing the agriculture & forestry sector, which accounts for 6% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, requires significantly strengthening mitigation in agriculture. The final scoping plan must: Regulate nitrogen fertilizer use. Nitrogen fertilizers produce potent greenhouse gas emissions in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O) that must be regulated. Develop a plan to address emissions from tractors and farm equipment. This plan should include a practical pathway to decarbonize farm equipment that is essential to New York’s food production while supporting New York farmers in this fuel transition. Regulate Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and their negative environmental impacts. The plan should additionally incentivize a shift towards climate-friendly feeding practices, including use of dietary supplements for ruminant livestock that may significantly reduce methane emissions. | ||
| jean,hayes | you need to get into the real world. do you not know that, very often, to make electricity, you need to burn fossil fuels. your plan will make things much worse. first, develop technologies which will actually help the planet. the way you propose things now, we will have to re-install wood burning stoves or fireplaces to stay warm, heat water, and cook. you are putting the cart before the horse. duh. there is a major problem about recycling windmill blades, solar panels, for examples.do you remember how many gallons of oil each windmill needs annually? double duh. where is there any advantage to stopping natural gas usage? God provided the earth with it. don't you think we ought to use what He has given us?how much methane leaks from the earth, unused, daily? you need to take your blinders off, and use your heads! | ||
| Robert,Shaw | I support the CAC plan as drafted. We need to radically and expediently adjust our negative effects on the environment. Please accept this citizen's voice in support of proceeding with haste towards decarbonizing our economy. | ||
| Kristin,Rocheleau | While I am concerned with global warming, the use of natural gas in residential building for heating and appliances is wide-spread. Eliminating the ability for residents to use this and/or refit their homes would place an undue burden on NYS residents. Also, banning the sale of vehicles using gasoline is prohibitive and again places an undue burden on residents. | ||
| Will,Bartz | Hello - I am a life long NYer who is finding it more and more difficult to afford to live in the state. This bill only adds even more cost and regulation to a state that has to much of this to begin with. The state is losing residents left and right and this bill will only help to drive more tax payers away. I am strongly against the no new gas service, no natural gas in new buildings, no new gas appliances and no new gas automobile portion of this bill. I would hope for NYers you do not pass this bill, and atleast the above mentioned portions. Thank you. | ||
| Jeannette,Mays | With all that is going on in Europe, and realizing how important energy independence is, why are we even thinking of doing some of these measures? It is unattainable to be free of gasoline power cars and atv and etc without damaging other parts of our environment. We don't have a stable electrical grid, what do we do with old batteries? How can we possible build all the charging stations? How can people afford electric cars with all the other expenses that come with them? paying for increased home insurance, a charging station, increased car insurance rates, Is anyone, I mean anyone talking to the car experts? This plan is not obtainable, and I so wish we could get you to listen to the conservative side of this state. | ||
| Jonathan,Wilcox | I believe we in fact need to be more responsible with carbon based fuels, however, I also believe that this plan is FAR too aggressive in attempting to facilitate this change. If you are a part of the suburban population of New York state, these new regulations will be crippling to our personal finances as well as an already stagnant business climate. I think this process should be put to a "public" vote. This way, the people that are most effected by these aggressive changes can express their opinion through the Democratic process, rather than have a select few policy makers cram it down our throats. If New York City wants to cripple their economy and see even more people exit this region, Your on the right path. As this phrase was so well put many years ago... "will the last one out of New York, please turn out the lights". Until the rest of the industrialized world is on board with these over reaching regulations, lets rethink this timetable. We have not reached the level of renewable energy at this time or anytime in the next 15-20 years for this plan to function properly. STOP THE MADNESS! | ||
| Brian,engleka | |||
| Roxanna,Frederick | I am NOTfor the climate change agenda … | ||
| Dawn,Ogden | Self | I do not feel that this plan is in the best interest of the economy or the people. It will only cost citizens more money to convert everything over from gas to whatever form of power you propose. We are already paying enough for necessities and I don't believe this plan is feasible for anyone anywhere!! | |
| Thomas,Mays | TRM Mechanical | This is a ludicrous Plan Living in a rural area of NYS why are we being forced to obey to this kind of legislation which effects our areas the most? How do you expect to force people to stop using natural gas and not allowed to buy gasoline powered vehicle's? How do you expect people living from paycheck to pay check, forced to pay the higest taxes in the nation, spiraling crime and the mass exodus of taxpayers? How are farmers local small industrys going to operate with just electricity? I grew up in the 70s when the electric house came into being people COULDNT AFFORD the price of it and switched to natural gas or other fuels for heat Do your research on this We are tired of being FORCED into these ideas Electric cars no fossil fuels If Its so important of an issue then put it on the ballot and LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE instead of a panel of people with out a care of how it will effect average New Yorkers just look at the mess people like YOU have caused this state | |
| Kathie,Holzschuh | Natural gas is clean, efficient, abundant, and affordable. Almost every home and business in New York State uses natural gas. How irresponsible it is, to even think about shutting down or reducing our natural gas supply. People can't just up and stop living! What right do politicians have to change our lives, and force unwanted laws down our throats! It's unconscionable! Our homes and businesses would become useless and unaffordable. This for sure shows how out of touch and dysfunctional our state government has become. This plan would destroy our quality of life, and our futures. I'm all for saving the planet, but New Yorker's alone can't do it. Wake up and face this reality! Bad things happen when ignorant and condescending politicians try to run people's lives. | ||
| Samana,Lake | I applaud the scope of this extensive and comprehensive document outlining so many key areas of need in achieving our climate goals over the next 50 years. I agree with the need to protect those of low income who are disproportionately affected by greenhouse gas emissions affecting individuals health and quality of life. I agree that legislation must protect these communities creating resources for affording the transition to renewable energy sources for homes and transportation and include infrastructure to support efficient public transportation to and from work spaces and charging stations accessible for electric vehicles. Regarding buildings, I strongly support the need for Building zoning plans, banning gas hookups in new construction and educating on how to change to high efficient heat pumps and cooling systems. Buildings create 32% of our greenhouse emissions in this state with 48% within low income communities. These communities must be supported in our state wide transition to Net Zero Carbon Emissions which will provide them with extensive benefits: Major economic benefits from decreased heating/cooling costs Major health benefits from decreased indoor pollution: less asthma and pneumonia; and less lung and heart disease in general. Less thermal stress. Potential for dramatic increase in employment in good paying jobs relating to the Green Transition To receive these benefits those of low income must be supported with: Money to install the advanced insulation and heating /cooling systems Access to the technical expertise needed to install and maintain these sytems In many cases housing stock in DACs has deteriorated to the point where major repairs will be required just to make these installations possible. These repairs must be contracted and paid for. There must be mechanisms to ensure that these upgrades do not create rental/ownership/tax costs. We must protect and ensure the health of all our people. Sincerely, Samana Lake | ||
| Ronald,Ellis | I do not support the climate action council's plan that proposes 1) eliminating gas service to existing buildings beginning 2024, 2) no natural gas within newly constructed buildings beginning 2024, 3) no new natural gas appliances beginning 2030 and 4) no gasoline automobile sales by 2035. I do encourage offering affordable options for energy resources. Imposing the proposed restrictions on the people of NY will impose unfair and unjust financial burdens, loss of jobs and anxiety. Thank you for taken action and voting in a manner that supports my beliefs. | ||
| John,Newton | Mandala School | The plan looks good and sufficiently aggressive. My particular focus is to electrify the school buses used in about 950 NY school districts. This is a clear objective that mostly requires money to implement. Districts will need buses or contract for electric bus services. Local infrastructure must be built for charging stations, maintenance crews trained, and drivers trained for new issues with the buses. Perhaps a new model is appropriate where buses are integrated with the local mass transit system. Within many cities, school children use the metro system. Why not expand that concept to suburban and rural areas? | |
| Jennifer,Steele | As a life-long NYS resident, I am opposed to this plan. I think the broad over-reaching approach taken by this plan will only drive more people out of the state. Perhaps focusing on incentives to change rather than not allowing people to buy gas stoves, water heaters or automobiles is a better idea. | ||
| Christopher,Banker | This plan is not feasible until you offer the normal Joe Public that makes $50,000/year a way to heat their home and hot water a better way. Certainly natural gas is the cheapest way to do those things. Home heating oil and propane are all thats left and those are not cheap alternatives. Solar and wind power are not always an option especially in small villaged and towns that have already imposed moratorium on them. What are the options. This is the safest and cheapest means possible. Its piped everyplace. Heating oil and propane need to be trucked everywhere. That adds a very large logistics problem. Until alternative clean energies are more affordable, this is not the way to move forward. | ||
| Theresa,Brosius | I'm glad you want our input on this subject. We feel ignored by our representatives, so it is good to have an opportunity to comment on this. Some of us have purchased new appliances and cars and we can't afford to get rid of them because the government wants us to. Natural gas and fuel cells are more dependable than electric especially when the power goes out. That would be more disastrous for those who depend on oxygen, heat, hospitals, etc. Most average homes can't afford electric vehicles as we are on a fixed income and I resent being forced into these proposed changes. I SAY NO TO ALL PROPOSALS IN THIS SCOPING PLAN! We have more important issues to deal with at this point including the border crisis, high crime, and lack of respect for our police and military. | ||
| Natalia,Miller | Create a surcharge on landfill waste. The amendment and expansion of the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law tackles the organic waste issue at its financial core- that it is relatively cheaper to dispose of organic waste in the landfill than it is to recycle. By imposing a surcharge on landfill waste (making it more expensive) to financially support reduction, reuse and recycling, the price of disposing waste in landfills will be made closer to its real environmental, societal and economic cost. Implement more stringent organics recycling and food donation programs for major food generators. Stronger programs on major food generators (hospitals, universities, restaurants and supermarkets, etc) is a very efficient way to reduce and recycle organic waste. In addition to targeting the bulk of organic waste in the state, this will also set an example for smaller food generators as well as individuals and households. Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. Immediately implement “by request only” single-use materials in restaurants. A statewide “by request only” policy must be administered for single-use items with a requirement of reusable or refillable options. Single-use items, such as utensils and dish ware in restaurants, can be phased out in favor of multi-use items that will reduce landfill waste. | ||
| Pete,Ames | I understand the need to deal with climate change and global warming, but this proposal is severe and overreaching. We should have a blend of natural gas, gasoline, solar and wind. WE SHOULD NOT abandon natural gas, oil, and gasoline. We cannot switch to a totally electric society. It doesn't make sense. Natural gas is clean as is nuclear energy. Promote hydrogen. Not every area in our country is conducive to solar or wind energy. Work towards a greener future, but DO NOT abandon our current sources of energy. I can't afford an electric car any more than the MAJORITY of my fellow americans. Do any congressman or senators drive electric cars? If they do, that is because they can afford it. The cost of any kind of energy right now is bankrupting us and it has to be rectified. STOP THIS MADNESS!!! | ||
| Randall,Steele | This is absolutely insane and I do not support any of this. I will never support any of this. The only thing this is going to accomplish is to have even more people move out of this state. The democrat party is completely ruining this state as usual. | ||
| Chungin,Goodstein | I Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I wanted to s I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the electricity sector, which accounts for 13% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, New York must rapidly end all fossil fuel development while investing in storage and renewable energy resources and prioritizing a clean energy transition for Disadvantaged Communities that have borne the brunt of fossil fuel pollution and economic hardship. The final scoping plan must: Close fossil fuel plants in Disadvantaged Communities and financially support a just transition. The phase-out of fossil fuel plants in disadvantaged areas must consider the potential financial impacts on the local economy. Financial support must be provided to communities to ensure that reducing fossil fuel usage does not lead to significant unemployment or financial burdens. Require fossil fuel companies to bear full responsibility for cleanup of polluted sites. Fossil fuel companies must bear responsibility for remediating any damage caused to the local environment, as they are the actors who necessitated . Ban construction of fossil fuel facilities: NO NEW FOSSIL FUELS. To achieve the goal of retiring fossil fuel facilities and reducing fossil fuel dependency, | ||
| Jade,Weiss | Glen FARMLand & the town of Root Planning Board | I voice support of Sen. Hinchey's amendment (s7677) which moves to make an effort to, "minimize, & mitigate agricultural impacts to active agricultural lands" when in pursuit of locations to install solar power plants. Developers MUST be incentivized to look at brown fields, roofs of existing businesses, any industrial location CLOSER to the origin of need rather than farmland. I support the call for responsible renewable energy practices guided by attention to food security rather than profit. I'm a 26yr old farmer who believes upstate NY can reclaim agricultural power to provide for NY in economically beneficial ways - for its farmers, citizens, & tourists. Food/gas costs continue to rise & NY could save by sourcing its food & encouraging more sustainable processing within its borders. There are farmers all around me finding ways to create a future which does not include paying exuberant prices for chicken or milk, do not ruin this work. As a member of a town planning board which are historically small & lacking resources, it's unacceptable that you offer robust state backed help to developers when sorting out their applications to acquire solar land. The money that funds ORES & all the help they offer utility tycoons would be better spent on encouraging farming. Offer farmers generous grants to switch to ethical cover cropping & produce farming. Offer butchers, dairy processors, agricultural product handlers more tax incentives & ways to plug into their communities to balance out the effects of monopolized corporations like Price Chopper which don't cooperate with small farmers well. I wholly believe that if we expend our remaining natural resources - capable of producing food for generations to come - on solar farms, we will regret it. These projects put land out of use for decades at a time - returning back to farming in a substantial capacity will be more challenging. Do better for those who make food and protect your small towns. Thank you. | |
| Benjamin,Martin | Reducing the use of gasoline and natural gas is a reasonable and necessary step to do our part in addressing climate change. I support the recommendations of this plan. | ||
| Jack,Loud | Dedicate at least $1 billion per year to assist low to moderate income households with electrification. Electrification upgrades can have high upfront costs so it is extremely important to dedicate public funding to support electrification for low to moderate income households. Not only does electrification significantly reduce household GHG emissions, it also results in substantial energy bill savings that could greatly benefit LMI households. | ||
| Tom,Holdgate | The so-called Green New Deal is just about the WORST idea in recent decades (second only to Fauci’s failed GAIN OF FUNCTION PLANDEMIC). Strip mining for lithium is far worse for the planet than drilling for oil. Burning petroleum to power the millions of charging stations which WOULD be needed, is counter intuitive, as it would REDUCE EFFICIENCY to the equivalent of about SIX MILES PER GALLON (or less!) Disposing of dead lithium batteries- which are NOT recyclable, into land fills is DEADLY FOR THE WATERS & ENVIRONMENT. And just plain stupid. Solar energy ‘farms’ are only 60% efficient, unless new discoveries have been proven in photovoltaics, they simply aren’t a viable alternative. Helpful, perhaps, but NOT AS ANY KIND OF REPLACEMENT. WIND TURBINES KILL BIRDS. They also cost as much, environmentally, to make AND to dispose of, as their alleged benefits give. They are also extremely LOUD. they are also extremely detrimental to the aesthetics of the landscape. SAVE THE PLANET: American ???? produced natural gas for homes. American ???? produced gasoline and diesel for vehicles Government OVERREACH MUST END. Government SERVANTS work for LEGAL CITIZENS, not the other way around. | ||
| Abby,Frazier | Introduce a feebate for zero-emission vehicles. Since transportation emissions are so high, it is important to promote the use of electric vehicles. A feebate program for zero-emission vehicles would be a great way to incentivize the purchase of ZEVs and make them more affordable for LMI customers. Transportation is a constant in this world, thus it is necessary to create a feasible plan that tackles transportation head-on. Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. | ||
| Polly,Cogar | USA is only one country its impossible to make a difference except to the rich and you people who make your money off the tax payers backs all you will do is cause more poverty and death to the citizens in our country and make our children suffer you should be ashamed of what you're doing to this country for the people by the people ! Let the tax payers decide | ||
| Rick,Haas | No new gas service to existing building in 2024; no new gas for newly constructed buildings in 2024? Come on New York. STOP tying our hands. We can barely survive the outrageous and gross taxes that we are charged and now you want to force us with these regulations which undoubtedly will make us spend more money for emission reductions. Shortly I will be following my friends, family and colleagues and leaving the state. Your wasteful spending is out of hand and you are making it impossible to financially survive. Stop wasting time and energy coming up with these ridiculous regulations and start finding ways to reduce my taxes (which I know will most likely never happen). Start listening to the people. | ||
| Gregory,Schuler | We are 100% against the implementation of the Our Climate Act!! This is totally unnecessary. Ridiculous that natural gas will not be allowed in new builds. Ridiculous one won't be able be able to purchase a new gas dryer, water heater and other gas appliances beginning in 2030. Total government overreach. Will mean higher utility bills for all especially middle income. Another reason not to live in New York state! | ||
| Edward D,Winter | While most of this would work to cut back on emissions, but would mostly work for large scale cities, like NYC. I find that the plan of removing natural gas and appliances from being for sale and used ridiculous, especially for heat. First, the committee wants to remove wood burning for heating homes and now natural gas or LP for home heating. How does the committee propose we heat our homes, with electric, which will turn our electric bills to go up. Electric cars start fires if there is an overload on the power in our homes, or if the electrical work in our homes is not upgraded. These are all extra costs to New Yorkers and will not be tolerated! | ||
| Donald,Napoleon | My comments are aimed at the the government, what gives it the right to tell its citizens what to use to heat their homes and fuel their cars. It makes no sense to push electric on everyone. Electric cars in the snow belt makes no sense. Not even realizing the dependence on foreign countries to get the raw materials to make batteries and the high cost to replace them. Not allowing natural gas in buildings and homes is not where I want to be in 2 years. What are you going to do to heat and cool them. Who are you trying to fool. Electricity that will be solar and wind generated, come on do we all look like fools. My electric cost are in the 9 cent per Kw even being next to one of the largest hydro plant in the state. What disaster are you trying to pass on to all of us when the grid won't handle the load you are gong to put on it. What you are proposing needs 50 plus years to implement. Technology need to catch up and prove itself with your grand plans. Don and Justine Napoleon | ||
| Bonnie,Covey | It is essential that NYS take the lead in climate action. We must reduce emissions and limit oil and gas consumption in any legal way. | ||
| James,Jamieson | Orleans-Niagara Boces | I feel that this plan is too aggressive in time and goals. The time frame, for the transition to purely electric power, is too soon. Period of transition needs to be longer, by at least a 10 year time frame. The shifting of home heating and cooking and transporation to just electric, begs the QUESTION- will the power grids support it! You will say, yes it will but with upgrades. Of course the taxpayer will pay even more! The migration out of state will just increase. If I stay, I will buy my GAS appliances out of state and install them here. I am not in support of this act! | |
| Charles,Parsons | This is absolutely absurd. I as a homeowner am not going to be told by Government that I have to only use electricity when I have up to date energy efficient appliances and HVAC systems. This is not how Democracy works | ||
| Eugene,Outterson | I disagree with your Climate Change Act. People on fixed income will not be able to afford any of what you propose . Electric rates will increase and will not being affordable. Transportation is not going to be able with your project in rural areas of New York State. New York City should not be forcing thee views on up state New York. You can not stop homes from using natural gas, propane or home heating oil. What you want to do is all wrong . What you need is a mixture of everything and then give people there own choice on what they want to do and not be forced into something they do not want. What you are proposing will force more people to move out of New York State. Taking farm land out of production for wind turbines and solar farms will cause shortage of food production. If cities want clean energy they should produce there own and not force rural areas to have solar farms and wind turbines . There is a hugh difference between up state New York and down state New York which city people do not under stand or do not care. My wife and myself are against your climate change draft as you want to do. Gas vehicles will be needed and should not stop sales in New York State at any time. Farm tractors will not be able to run on electric. Were do you get materials to make electric batteries , not in the United States , how do you dispose of waste batteries, how do you dispose of bad blades from wind turbines, they should not be put in land fill they can not be recycled . You are forcing your Climate Act on people who do not want it. A future mix of all energy sources is what is needed air, wind, natural gas, propaner and yes oil. | ||
| Karen,Perrigo | Karen M Perrigo, Attorney/CPA | I agree climate change is important but I disagree with the time line as proposed. This proposed legislation will greatly impact the rural areas. Small businesses are already struggling in the rural areas such as Allegany County. What will the cost be for municipalities and schools to switch to electric vehicles and other fuel sources for heating? Where will the money come from? The goal should be to look at all forms of clean energy. What will the impact be on tax revenues when you have less gas powered vehicles on the road? Who will know how to repair/maintain electric powered vehicle? Where will the work force come from? | |
| Ron,Campbell | I am sorry to have to object in the strongest way to this entire waste of taxpayer money. This is the most ludicrous proposal that I have ever heard of. The idea of decarbonizing our economy is not only ridiculous it is dangerous. With that amount of dependency on one form of energy it leaves us vulnerable to malicious attack from our enemies. In regard to NY Climate Leadership I have to wonder why our state always has to lead in Left Wing (communist) areas. Why can't we lead in the best economy, the lowest taxes, the lowest crime, the best real education (not the tripe that is currently rammed down our throats) and the reduction in the rampant moral depravity in NYS government. I had to laugh at your statement of "Overarching Purpose and Objectives" of this plan. "Overarching" is clearly the wrong word. I think it would be better to have said "Overreaching" ! Then there is the idea of Achieving Climate Justice. What a bunch of utter nonsense. Who thinks of this garbage. Finally, I disagree with your assessment of the benefits of the plan. Not only are the environmental benefits questionable, your financial speculations seem totally unachievable. This whole plan will decimate our entire economy, leave us vulnerable and not produce the desired effect. I for one refuse to limit my travel to mass transportation and some electric piece of junk. When the governor starts riding a bike to work and not using the government's aircraft for personal purposes I'll start listening to want she has to say. | ||
| Robert,Conklin | I honestly don't have time to read everything about your socalled climate proposals. It is of my opinion that the earth has been taking care of its own climate for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions of years long after all of you folks are GONE. This is nothing more than you people, whomever you are, are about nothing more except TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE STATE OF N Y AND ITS PEOPLE. ENOUGH SAID!! | ||
| Jeff,Greywitt | No to all. We are not technically ready for this change. More time is required to further develop technologies required before these steps can be considered. This should not be legislated but encouraged when the proper technologies are available in the future. | ||
| Robert,Bockus | The climate act is not only over reaching by the government but if it goes through as proposed it will dramatically affect the middle and low income families. The umbrella of reducing greenhouse gases and zero emissions by 2024 will undoubtedly cost jobs and destroy industries through out New York. All of these proposals will ultimately fail because it completely depends on electricity that will not be able to be generated in the amount needed and will not be sustainable. To have No gasoline automobiles sold by 2035 is unattainable and that's already been expressed by the automobile manufactures. Unfortunately this proposal is definitely over reaching by the Government that will adversely the citizens of New York. | ||
| ANGELA,DORGAN | This Act seems great in theory but I think there are too many changes that could negatively effect so many other areas. No new gas service at all seems unrealistic. There also is no guarantee that this well be cost effective for the citizens. NYS is expensive enough. Also I do not like the fact that you want to make such strict restrictions into the future. 2035 is too far away to mandate anything. On the other hand 2024 is not far away enough to implement changes. Right now they may seem to work but why mandate so far into the future with something so new. I think small changes will be more realistic and seem more acceptable. | ||
| Herbert,Bullock | Bullock certified tree farm | In my opinion, corporations are purchasing too much "prime farmland" to place solar panel arrays, especially forest lands. They often are also buying contracts with local landowners for forest sequestration, with little if any management of these contracts. Forest lands should be considered "prime agriculture" lands and not be clear cut in order to place solar arrays, that makes no sense. If "forest lands", could be considered "prime agriculture", that will give local agencies more guidance when governing both solar arrays, and private sequestration contracts when involving forest lands. Chapter 15 discusses, NYS sequestration banks, which is good, but more oversite of corporate land contracts with small landowners is needed. These corporate land contracts should be coordinated with this state bank. Corporations should be involved to use trade and cap concepts; however, they need to be more regulated with guidelines. Often times, these corporations only care about acreage set aside which they can use in their brochures, and they do not really care about management strategies, nor any real carbon storage, This will likely mean more NYS monies will be needed for foresters to enforce guidelines, more state monies to compete with corporations for state run Thank you, Herbert Bullock, Canton, NY | |
| Paul,Taylor | I am against the proposal to eliminate the availablity gas appliances, furnaces and water heaters by 2030. This is way too early to do this. My home is set up for all natural gas devices. Does NY state plan on covering my cost to switch to something else? This proposal needs to be extended beyond 2030 by another 20 years. | ||
| richard,pearson | I am writing to voice my opinion that you do all you can to defeat the proposed Climate Action Council plan ----- and all efforts to impose deadlines on adoption of total clean energy efforts in the future. The liberal feel good attempts to force people to “go green” are just that, politically based, pay offs to donors and illogical. The Technology is not to the point of being able to replace our carbon based energy and in fact is itself dependent on carbon based energy. It is unrealistic to mandate conversion by any randomly selected date. Use logic, science, and ingenuity and allow our creative energies to develop the new energies to the point of being practical in use economical and reliable by funding research and development responsibly. Piutn the efforts and money into development and faith in American Ingenuity. | ||
| Ryan,Woolston | I believe it to be draconian and irresponsible for the state government to attempt to force the citizenry to comply with their "vision". In my opinion this is not leadership, this is Aristocracy. Power grid - The power grid is fragile, just this month, my area of town has lost power 3 times. To attempt to force electric only appliances is short sighted. Electric Cars - There are certain places where it makes sense currently (public transport, mail delivery, urban areas) and I believe that given a little time, most people will move to electric vehicles. However there are some areas that it doesn't make sense. (Extremely cold areas, Rural, Semi trucks) Food for thought... There were no government mandates to force people from using horses when the automobile was in the beginning of its life cycle. Emissions - I believe this is a noble goal and I believe this will naturally decrease with more EVs on the road. However on a global scale this is hugely naïve. There are places not far away that still burn tires and trash. Lets focus on actual goals that do not hamstring the state. There are distinct differences between the urban areas and the rural areas of New York State. Lets embrace the differences and benefits of both areas. Lets have compassion for one another and help move each other forward, instead of forcing one group into the mold the other has created. | ||
| Donna,Elliott | Your proposals would put such a hardship on New Yorkers and their families. Our economy is hurting enough, so why continue to dig the knife in deeper? Businesses are closing, some have simply moved due to over regulations and taxes. People are afraid to start new business here already so why make it even harder for them by forcing this onto us? Making NYS follow these guidelines is not going to make that big of a difference in what you are saying is a global problem. It should be a choice for the American people, not something shoved down our throats because government found a better way to put money in theirs and their contributors pockets. This would also contribute to our already DEPENDENT position on Russia and others for the fossil fuels that we will inevitable still need. Please reconsider this guidance and give our state a chance to become better. Thank you. | ||
| Rhett,Johnson | Please make all your information known to the public via news media, newspapers, etc. Most New Yorkers have NO IDEA of what you are trying to do! Second I don’t agree with anything you are pushing! It will only lead to monopolies and mass migration of residents out of this state! Thank you! | ||
| Richard,Brustman | Citizen | Considering how incredibly large this plan's scope is, there should be a more serious analysis of the economics behind it. There should be quantified estimates of costs and benefits of all elements of the plan. The economic analysis now in the draft is seriously lacking in both completeness and supporting evidence. This analysis is needed so the reader can get a handle on both the value of the various plan elements and, maybe more importantly, the sheer scale of this immense plan. This is not just another government program. Further, it would be nice to see more discussion of the backup contingencies needed for when the plan's many working parts fail to mesh. For instance, if it turns out we can't build carbon-free power at the pace envisioned, how will the shortfall be managed? Rationing? Fossil fuels? Market forces? Etc.? | |
| Rose,Allport | Our dependency on gas, oil, etc is important to reduce our need BUT be realistic about it. New Yorkers have been taxed on tax severely for generations. My age group is not as compliance as our parents. Ex. That's the way it is so just pay it. No, as a single mom who raised a family and educated myself by night classes, I learned to turn a dollar into 1.50 and you can too. Stop throw these ideas down are throat all at once. Start with wind power to provide power to out homes. If good after 5 yrs advance to gas, butI give us some help. For the love of God, I grew up on lake Ontario and in the long winter months its a flipping wind tunnel. Plz don't just stop the pipe line without a sold obtainable plan, don't repeat Biden's biggest mistake. If your political decision was wrong, do what President Reagan did. Publicly admit you where wrong. I wasn't his biggest fan but I admired and respected him greatly for that. Maybe our representatives needs a wake up reminder of how the majority try to survive. Come stay for a week in our homes, it just might humble you! | ||
| Joseph,Granto | I do not agree with this plan. We are paying enough for everything in this state. Gas was 3 dollars cheaper 2 years ago. Leave my utilities alone! Enough already. Our bank accounts are being destroyed! Don't pass this. | ||
| Renee,Bertoni | I don't see how getting zero emissions here is going to help anything unless the whole world does the same. Our emissions are already great compared to other places. Also the cost to regular citizens will be out of this world. To me it is just a fairy tale. Most middle and low income people cannot afford a new electric vehicle. Also natural gas is very clean. In upstate New York there is not enough sunshine for sure for solar or even wind all the time. We don't want to end up like California with rolling blackouts. Why can't this administration just leave things alone instead of stirring up more problems and hardship for it's citizens. | ||
| Jacob,Dorpfeld | This entire Climate Action Council is not just in opposition to American and NYS citizen's rights but human rights. Banning a safe and efficient means of heating, and powering homes violates the Declaration of Independence's concept of "pursuit of happiness" as a right. I do not want to use electric as my only option to heat my new shop for my small business to be built in the next 5 years unless we take drastic measures to build and power our grid with nuclear. The evidence is clear that solar and wind collection for energy are not the most efficient or financially viable. Please give us our right back. Allow natural gas, propane, oil, and wood to remain un impeded as energy sources. | ||
| jim,williamson | This is in reference to the our climate act.. First, I think this timeline is crazy and way to aggressive especially with no gas service to homes in 2024. what about Standby generators that run off natural gas? Are you gonna kill that business? You expect everyone to get a large propane tank at there house to run these? Some houses there is barley enough room to install the actual unit. Also water heating with electric requires alot of electricity especially on demand units. I do not have a lot of confidence in this proposal...How about something smarter like starting in 2024 all new homes have to have a certain amount of solar on there house to offset their usage...Batteries are not the way they also create alot of pollution to produce and recycling of them seems to also be a problem. | ||
| John,Grzibowski | Treco Inc | Some of the best farmland and forested land is being developed. Any high grade land being developed should have a tax of twice the sale price of the land per acre or a high minimum. Build on already developed brown space. Give the money back to farmers and people with forested land. Invasive species are destroying the carrying capacity of the forests. Ash trees alone are being destroyed by the billions in NYS from the emerald ash borer. That's Trillions of dollars in environmental damage (figuring $100/tree) Tax globalization to offset this the same amount. | |
| John,Grzibowski | Car regulators will stop all speeding. Easy to implement and save millions of gallons of gas. And save lives | ||
| John,Grzibowski | Treco Inc | A very quick way to reduce transportation emissions is to put speed governors on vehicles that doesn't let them speed. Excessive speed causes much more emissions. Any GPS for a hundred dollars follows speed and speed limits. These can be hooked up to cars computers. This technology is already available for commercial vehicles but not cars. This would save millions of gallons of gas and hundreds of lives and tens of thousands of serious injuries.. | |
| Keith,Hartloff | Hartloff Recreation | Great plan, let's do it! | |
| MARGARET,SHULTZ | I don't agree with the draft scoping plan. We rely on gas for our heat, hot water & cooking. We don't want to use electric for these. We wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm disabled, my husband works 50+ hours/ week & we live week to week, for food, gas for our auto's and medicines, food, etc. I can't imagine what we'd do, if we had to use electric for everything. And as far as an electric vehicle, we'd never be able to afford it. Plus, we'd have to have our whole house rewired to account for the high electricity for charging the car. Please consider the people that are poorer than we are. | ||
| Edward,Farnham | This plan is crazy! The middle and lower class will suffer tremendously from this plan! | ||
| Anna,Fabrizio | As a concerned homeowner, full time worker, consumer of goods and services in NY State I believe this plan is NOT in the best interest for the people of NY State. One reason would be the undue hardship for the low and middle income to be able to afford to make the necessary changes that the plan calls for. The cost of building a home is already out of control . NY state doesn’t have the infrastructure for adding electric charging stations, which would be another cost burden on a already HIGH taxed state. Bottom line is this plan for lower green house emissions will not help the citizens of New York but be a burden on them. Not to mention the effects this plan will have on business owners…New York can’t afford to lose any more good paying jobs, businesses or for taxes to go up. | ||
| Joela,Coger | I live in a rural town we have limited bus services. They are not available when most people have to head into work and walking or bicycling is not always an option. The public transportation will need to be available for earlier hours and later hours for work. Second most of the people who live In my town live mostly paycheck to paycheck and can not afford to upgrade vehicles and homes without compensation or it being provided. I will say my household income is usually somewhere around 25k each year with 3 people living off of that income. All spending is need based 90% of the time. If it still works we do not replace it because we can not afford it. So in conclusion the plans need to include paths for people who do not have any disposable income and not punish them if they can not comply with the guidelines as that would only make it even harder to do so. Thank you for your time please do not forget the lower class citizens you also make rules for. | ||
| Sam,Ricotta | This is all ridiculous! Do you really think people can afford changes in their homes or businesses or restaurants to replace and redo work in their homes and businesses to necessitate going to electric stoves for example? It's not that simple and you idiots have no idea on reality. If I need a gas stove I should be able to get one. or a new service to my house for heat. You people in Albany are so out of touch it's ridiculous!!!!! This whole thing should be thrown out and started over. People are tired of idiot politicians making decisions that make our lives worse. You all should be ashamed of yourselves | ||
| Neal,Kistner | my own personal point of view | None of the above are in line with my point of view on the whole matter. I do not, will not support this particular act in its current form. It is way too overreaching and problematic to agriculture and the petroleum industry. This will be an overburdensome impact on the middle class American. Should we doing things as responsible citizens of the earth God has blessed us with, absolutely! But not in the methods and timelines you are suggesting. You are obviously coming at this with a faulty premise and agenda. Thus your ability to make this all sound most utopian! I trust mine and what I feel will be many other opinions like mine, will be taken seriously Respectfully, Neal and Betsy Kistner | |
| Richard,Crandall | I consider this as fake, and away to take control from the people and dictate the world as we know it. NY is worried about cars burning a couple gallons of gas to get to and from work, But not worried about government or rich people burning 20 metric ton of fuel to launch a spaceship into space, just because they can? Motor heads at speed ways, tractor pulls, etc. burning high octane/diesel fuels that produce huge amounts of exhaust pollution for 10 min run. Military burning tons of fuel to fly jets, tanks, etc. just because they are government. Companies tear down forest and pile trees in middle of field and burn it just because they want to development of the land for there personal gain, that most likely they will abandon in 10 years after all profit is exhausted. The power plants witch burn fossil fuels to produce this power witch we will need to charge everything? Don't give me the bs line of solar or wind power that the companies are converting to. The amount of forestland and grassland that these companies are destroying to to build on, does not off set the amount of fossil fuel's that the average person is using. If anything the companies and governments are do more harm to environment then the people. | ||
| Kathy,Martin-Smith | I have no intention of giving up my gas furnace, fireplace or stove. I will vote against any candidate for any office who supports this plan. | ||
| David,Ferguson | New York State should expand EPR to materials & products not yet covered. | ||
| Beate,liepert | Expand organics collection programs and decentralize these programs. Collection and transport of organic waste to centralized composting sites generates pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Local composting of organic waste should supported and prioritized. | ||
| Danika,Dortch | Bard College | Develop a plan to address emissions from tractors and farm equipment. This plan should include a practical pathway to decarbonize farm equipment that is essential to New York’s food production while supporting New York farmers in this fuel transition. | |
| Ronald,Perry | Reducing Greenhouse Emissions is an important topic for our future but forcing change only creates resistance! In my opinion we would be better served by making the zero-emissions alternatives available to the public and then educating them on why change is important moving forward! The average person is just not in the position to make all of the changes your suggesting in just 14 years. My approach would be make Zero-Emissions products available, make them affordable and educate people on why it's important to change! Less Resistance and the average person will have a better understanding of why they're making the change and be more in favor of the change! | ||
| Khadija ,Ghanizada | Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. | ||
| Ciara,Richards | Introduce a feebate for zero-emission vehicles. Since transportation emissions are so high, it is important to promote the use of electric vehicles. A feebate program for zero-emission vehicles would be a great way to incentivize the purchase of ZEVs and make them more affordable for LMI customers. Transportation is a constant in this world, thus it is necessary to create a feasible plan that tackles transportation head-on. | ||
| Baheshta ,Abed Rahimi | Bard College | Develop a plan to address emissions from tractors and farm equipment. This plan should include a practical pathway to decarbonize farm equipment that is essential to New York’s food production while supporting New York farmers in this fuel transition. | |
| Anna ,Pem | Rapidly end single-use packaging. Single-use packaging must be phased out and eliminated in retail stores and other locations, as it contributes to landfill waste consisting largely of non-recyclable material. | ||
| Rukhsar ,Balkhi | Bard College | Set clear and rapid targets for ending fossil fuel generation. Tangible, specific, and clearly articulated targets for ending fossil fuel generation must be established and evaluated to ensure adherence to climate goals. | |
| Heram ,Amiri | Bard College | Make a comprehensive plan for developing fully electric, extensive, and accessible public transportation. New York must give heightened consideration to public transit systems within the state, which can help move more people with greater efficiency. We need full electrification of an expansive and physically accessible public transit system helping people connect to their work, their communities, and all New York State has to offer. | |
| Morgan,Ruhle | Make a comprehensive plan for developing fully electric, extensive, and accessible public transportation. New York must give heightened consideration to public transit systems within the state, which can help move more people with greater efficiency. We need full electrification of an expansive and physically accessible public transit system helping people connect to their work, their communities, and all New York State has to offer. Address public transit beyond the New York City metro area to include expanded and electrified upstate transportation. The Climate Act offers us the opportunity to open doors for New Yorkers statewide. New York should develop a plan to expand and electrify public transportation to help upstate New York residents access economic, social, and cultural opportunities within their communities and across the state regardless of vehicle status. Address tri-state commuting in public transit plans by investing in rail and bus systems; divert funding away from road infrastructure. New York must consider community transportation needs by focusing on the larger tri-state area. New York brings in a lot of commuters, especially from New Jersey, and commuters should factor into the New York community. Commuters currently rely on single-occupancy vehicles, MTA, NJT, or coach buses into Port Authority, which are often unreliable and create a miserable commuting experience. New York must invest in public transit by improving user experience through increased frequency of service, more stop locations, and better communications, which will help reduce reliance on personal vehicles and thus reduce carbon emissions. | ||
| John,Owens | In an effort to further reduce the population of NYS, this plan is excellent. Not only can we drive people out with outrageous taxes, but cutting out a good portion of our energy supplies and reducing available options for building and operating our homes and businesses should aid in that process. My stove/oven, furnace, and water heater all run on gas. I currently heat my home, cook, and use hot water at a lower cost than what I pay to keep my lights on (only in occupied rooms), run a computer and rarely a television. I am retired, my income is not increasing. I live in the inner-city of Niagara Falls. How many people here can afford this wonderful plan to do away with greenhouse gas and make life more difficult and expensive. | ||
| WILLIAM,PARKER | self | EVERYONE IN NY STATE GOVT WHO DESIGNED THIS PLAN SHOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON THEM AS WELL AS AND THEIR IMMEDIATE AND EXTENDED FAMILIES, *************: (1) THEY MUST NEVER USE ANY FOSSIL FUELED VEHICLE (PLANE,TRAIN,AUTO,BUS,ETC) AND MUST CONFISCATE PRESENT OWNERSHIP OF SUCH. (2) THEY MUST STRIP OUT OF THEIR HOMES ANY AND ALL FOSSIL-FUELED APPLIANCES, AND ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES PRESENTLY CONNECTED TO ANY ELECTRICAL GRID THAT IS EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY ENERGIZED BY FOSSIL FUEL. THIS PLAN IS AN OBVIOUS ABOMINATION. THOSE WHO HAVE CREATED IT NEED TOBE FIRED IMMEDIATELY AND NEVER ALLOWED TO HOLD ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE ORHAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON ANY TYPE OF PUBLIC POLICY WHATSOEVER.. | |
| Katriel,Kirk | State procurement standards should require recycled content. Requiring recycled content to be sourced during procurement processes is an effective and reliable solution for excess post-consumer waste and all-around environmental pollution. The standard's requirement could ensure that the state is utilizing recycled goods and keeping them in circulation. This legislation should be expanding EPR to materials and products not yet covered. This is necessary because it incentivizes companies to promote recycling by providing products that are easily recycled. Additionally, this takes the responsibility of post-consumer waste off of the consumer and (rightfully so) places it on the producer. | ||
| Reginald,Buri | re: climate.ny.gov. Climate Act Scope As an upstate New Yorker and possessor of both Engineering and MBA degrees, I have reviewed said Plan and find it totally unrealistic in terms of both agenda, scope and time frame. Upstate NY is in no position to transition from natural gas to electrical primary energy source in the time projected. Natural gas is available with infrastructure solidly in place. It is our best resource of low carbon producing fuels. I object to the agenda outlined and request you submit this plan for implementation for your friends in California and not New York. Respectfully yours, Reginald C. Buri, Gasport, NY | ||
| Ronald,Kemp | The climate appears to be changing and policy must be dictated by cost vs. benefit. Limiting natural gas in a couple years without viable alternatives will make New York less competitive and a less desirable place to live. Coal fired plants are gone as are some natural gas plants. Nuclear plants are pretty much history. What is going to generate the energy we need? Windmills? Solar is popping up everywhere when neighbors permit. Most are 3-4 megawatts. It takes an awful lot of them to replace one 600 mw plant. Nuclear fusion is the best alternative with the exception of hydro. Who in government has the guts to promote nuclear? By the way, the UK has committed to build a fusion plant. If you’re banning gasoline auto sales by 2035, better get more juice to feed the electrics. What does all this mean with the EU not meeting it’s stated goals? What about the energy gulpers in India and China with no believable plans to stop spewing carbon. This is a problem but unilateral, fragmented energy policies will hurt more than they will help. | ||
| James ,Houseman | Let me begin by saying it's great that we want to go green but at what cost. First off our fuels are imperative to our success as a state and a country by switching everything to electric we will need extensive infrastructure reconstruction currently we do not have the infrastructure to support everyone owning an electric car everything going to pure electric. And by taking away other resources such as natural gas ,gasoline, oil we will become a society that is only relied on one resource of energy cost will rise people will no longer be able to afford other things the middle class and lower cannot afford a 40 50 or even $60,000 vehicle to meet these needs and most families need two vehicles. We currently have other situations and things that could be fixed within our society to lower cost to be more efficient to use less energy whether it be natural gas ,gasoline ,Diesel and even electric. Unfortunately we need to look at better ways of utilizing our resources and implementing the better ways of doing so. I can go on and on but do I agree with the initiative to end using resources by 2024 or 2030 and even 2035 no I do not I do not agree that we should be ending any new gas service to existing buildings no natural gas within new constructed buildings no new natural gas appliances for home heating cooking water heating or clothes drying or no gasoline automobile sales by 2035 I think the state oversteps its boundaries I think we have to look out for the people who put you in those positions the citizens of not only New York State but the United States so I do not agree with any of these initiatives I think there are better ways instead of giving people deadlines. I thank you for your time | ||
| Lori,McBride | If the intention of this plan is for the Climate Action Council and New York State is to drive residents out of the state, this is the way to do it. As an individual that considers themselves to be rather liberal, this plan is probably the one thing that would drive me out of the state. Sadly, as Western New York/Finger Lakes Region has been my home nearly all my life, I feel as though I am being forced to begin my search to leave. I live in Western New York/Finger Lakes Region (what Albany, and NYC residents refer to as Upstate), to lose the ability to heat my home in the event of a power outage would be tragic. I am not able to go anywhere in the event of a longer term power outage - which is not out of the question where I live. In the last several years there have been multiple power outages of 4 or more days, where do families go if they cannot heat their homes in an emergency 6 months out of the year? Have these issues been considered as part of your plan, or are you ok with people dying because of a sustained power outages? Have you considered all the health, safety and financial ramifications of forcing a change to electric stoves? Electric coils stay hot for extended periods of times, as a parent - am I supposed to lock my children out of my kitchen so they don't get burned by the coil? Further, they are a prohibitively awful way to cook - I would not be capable of switching to a cooking method specifically designed to ruin/burn food. Isn't there an obesity epidemic in the United States as a whole, including New York? Are we to exist on frozen dinners, having no fresh vegetables (other than what can be eaten raw) or meat only in summer when I can grill? Or will propane grills be on the chopping block as well, a further casualty to New York States assault on it's people? I would say this would be a boon for the restaurant take out industry - except they rely on decent cooking equipment, having to move to all electric would ruin them as well. | ||
| Dean,Pittman | I feel that this climate plan will hurt the average working family’s financial standing in NY. Heating with electricity is much more expensive than gas, we use natural gas and coal for power plants to create electricity which create more emissions than the vehicles we drive. I used to own a Chevrolet Volt and the cost of ownership was much greater than that of any other car I’ve owned in my lifetime. Most repair shops don’t know how to service an electric vehicle. There were many instances where I had to drive my wife’s car to work due to a power outage which prevented me from charging my car. Your plan will offer lower cost electricity to charge at off peak times but since I work 3rd shift when demand is the lowest I’ll be forced to charge during peek times. This type of short sited legislation is the reason why more and more New Yorkers are leaving this state. I’m one who plans on leaving to another state with cheaper taxes, a better enforcement of our criminal justice laws, less mandates and more common sense gun laws. | ||
| BRUCE,SUKENNIK | b | ||
| Lisa,Capsule | I am NOT in agreement with anything the CAC has in their plans because it is against my Constitutional freedoms and civil rights and gives any government the rights to overpower who they work for. It's too aggressive. It sound like a cancel culture group self absorbed in their own financial interests. Why haven't they cleaned up the radioactive destruction from the past in NY. Or the contaminated soil. Remember YOU WORK FOR US. I Screem NO! | ||
| Keith,Kennedy | This plan is going to cost the middle class untold amounts of money. Come up with a more realistic plan or I’m sure many will be forced to consider leaving an already over priced state. | ||
| Edwin,Wright | Lee Wright CPA | New Yorkers are now being asked to pay for the short-sightedness of Barach Obama and Joe Biden. We were well on our way to more efficient vehicles under the CAFE rules, but Mr. Obama decided it was too burdensome for the auto makers. As a result, half the country rides around in gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUV's. We were nearly energy independent when Mr. Biden decided we didn't need the Keystone pipeline and the price of gas doubled in one year. Now you're asking New Yorkers to pay for this mandate as well, just so that you can pound your chest and claim you were at the front of the fight to be "carbon neutral". Electric vehicles are not "carbon neutral". They will just create different environmental issues that we are not equipped to meet. Getting rid of gas appliances will only show how inadequate our power grid is to meet the demand. Creating a massive solar power grid will decimate our countryside and make the silicon shortage even more acute. What are America's farmers and truckers going to do with all this? We are nowhere near a "diesel-free" solution to farming and truck transportation. New Yorkers can't afford to lead the way while the rest of the world ignores the problem. Whenever politicians get ahead of a problem, they ramrod forward their solution, when they are not qualified to make those decisions. And then the taxpayers are left to clean up the mess. These short-sighted mandates are sure to make everything we buy, from food to cars, more expensive. More than we can afford! | |
| Stephanie,Lucas | --None-- | Please align Public Service Law (PSL) & Transportation Corporation Law with Climate Law, ending "100 foot rule" and utility obligation to provide new gas service on request. Allow gas-only utilities to expand energy services. Immediately end utility and NYSERDA marketing of natural gas. Include all-electric building codes for new construction (2024/2027). Set zero-emissions standards for replacing fossil equipment/appliances at end of useful life (2030/2035). Align Public Service Law with Climate Law, initiate managed equitable transition off gas (Krueger/Fahey bill S8198 would provide the fix). Discontinue all fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. Dedicate sufficient funding to support an affordable transition for low- and moderate-income households ($1 billion/yr). Develop a more robust public infrastructure plan that connects as part of an interstate system. Enable direct to consumer sales of electric vehicles in NY. Develop incentives to encourage rooftop & parking lot solar paired with storage.Set annual MW target for State permitting of renewables to reach 70x30 goal.Set MW targets to expand rooftop and parking lot solar & and siting on brownfields, and develop a plan to reach those targets. The priority focus should be on ramping up renewables and battery storage, as recommended, not "false solutions" (e.g., green hydrogen, RNG). Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. Incentivize agrivoltaics and require NYSERDA and Ag and Markets to produce educational materials and guidance on agrivoltaics. Launch statewide k-12 education & public information campaign around climate, renewable energy, and job training opportunities. | |
| Donald,Wolanin | none | I think we need to slow down a bit | |
| Steve,Tucker | Upgrading existing heating systems (e.g. from oil @ 80%efficiency to propane @ 95% efficiency) and improving home insulation makes more sense than forcing homeowners to ground source heat pumps. (Air source heat pumps will not work in up-state NY, where it regularly gets below zero, should not even be an option). Problems with GSHPs include: cost prohibitive 15-20k is not an option to home owners who can’t afford the high cost of living in NYS as it is right now. Some properties don’t have enough real estate for the ground loop. Electric vehicles: 1. Not ready yet and will take many years to get range where it needs to be for up-state New Yorkers. 2. Not enough charging stations available for local driving let alone travel. (Just went on a trip and traveled interstates through 9 states and the number of charging stations is pitiful.) 3. Long way to go in this area folks. 4. Electric lawn mowers will not work for for landscape contractors. 5. Electric farm equipment will make timely planting and harvesting crops almost impossible. Electric supply: Supply lines will need to be upgraded at an enormous cost and pollution levels (have to use fossil fuels for these projects). Solar fields on agriculture land is a bad idea, we need to increase agriculture not turn prime at land into solar production. And we don’t know the long term effects of these fields on society. Look what’s going on in Russia. President Biden sat to expect food shortages…….NY could be a solution to that challenge, but not if we are taking farm land and turning it into solar and wind farms. It’s happing already. In closing, there is no easy answers, but putting all your eggs in one basket is not the right approach. In addition taxing fuels (oil, gas, propane ect.) to force compliance is just plain wrong. Unaffordable cost of living ( even more than it is now) is one more reason for folks to leave NYS. | ||
| Noelle ,Pacer | N/A | I strongly believe that the U.S., including NYS, be self-sufficient in energy, yet sharing what we need with our neighbors. I believe that we should not be greedy in closing off our natural resources while taking from other countries. I believe that we should not purge the resources of impoverished nations for our own gain. We should use energy that is as clean as possible, and I believe we should use a variety of reliable sources. EVs seem “green”, but are they? Batteries do not make electricity; they store it. Electricity is produced primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. An EV is not a zero-emission vehicle. A typical EV battery weighs 1,000 pounds. It contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds copper, 400 pounds aluminum, steel and plastic. There are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside the battery. These toxic components come from mining. Much of cobalt is minded in the Congo. Their mines have no pollution control. Children are “employed” in mining, being exposed to this toxin. Where will we dispose of EV batteries? All batteries eventually rupture and wind up in landfills. As a retired senior resident of NY, I keep my costs as low as possible. I drive a 2011 Ford Fusion, which I purchased in 2020, with mileage of 33K. The vehicle currently has 44K miles. I intended it to be my last automobile purchase. Will I be able to have parts replaced as this vehicle ages? My home is heated with hot water baseboard heat, in 3 zones. It is very efficient, as I can adjust zones according to our use within the home. I do not have air conditioning. I believe that I am doing my part to “go green”, with my personal vegetable garden, use of trees for natural home cooling, cooking my own food with a mostly Whole-Food-Plant-Based diet, and limiting wasteful purchases. I do not support the Critical Environmental Plan. | |
| Albert A.,Baker | Senator Ortt, I am completely opposed to the CAC recommended scoping plan. It is completely unworkable. Everybody knows that fossil fuel is burnt to produce electricity. Whether it comes out of tailpipes or smokestacks oil and gas are the fuel of freedom and democracy. Please as my Senator vigorously oppose these far reaching un-American proposals. | ||
| Darryl,Raate | NO.. JUST NO. | ||
| Felix,Hatton | Western New York Youth Climate Council | In order to combat the climate crisis, we need to fund the CLCPA.This is a crucial step in making the changes necessary to address the crisis. It will help to decrease our emissions and build infrastructure to deal with climate change in the long term. This change is especially important to me because I am a young adult with my entire life ahead of me. That life might not last as long as I hope if we do not reach zero emissions by 2040. But it is not just my life; it is the life of the planet too. | |
| Stephen ,Pitoniak | |||
| Sheila ,Nix | Independent | Forcing all electric is not beneficial to New York State | |
| Michael,Magazine | New York State for centuries has been the focal point of innovation, and achievement both nationally, and worldwide. Our Final Scoping Plan is the blueprint for the climate and environmental future of NY. Must reflect that high standard, we must strive for a progressive groundbreaking set of provisions in our plan. For starters, we cannot allow false solutions to clog our future. Biofuels, Renewable Natural gas, green hydrogen, and the countless greenwashed solutions proposed by fossil fuel tycoons and sympathizers alike. These can not be within NY State Final Scoping Plan, instead renewable, zero-emission technologies like solar and wind. Have to be the centerpiece of our planning. Second, the CLCPA has to be fully funded. The yearly activism to ensure our agreed to climate policy is properly funded cannot continue. A systemic mechanism for yearly funding of the CLCPA needs to be established in our final plan. Third, we must draw our line in the sand. Environmental Justice must come first. An equitable solution ensures low-income and minority communities, at the frontlines of this crisis. Are properly taken care of, and the fair access to green union jobs. That abides by strong labor regulations and more local and responsible hiring. Last but not least, we must ensure New York State reaches Scenario Three. To meet our goal of a zero-emission power sector by 2040, a rapid and robust transition away from fossil fuels is needed. Our Final Scoping Plan is not just a legislative need, but a reflection of our goals. If New York state prioritizes the environment, it must include these provisions. If New York state cares for minority and at-risk communities, it must include these provisions. If New York State cares about the future of this state and the country at large. And respects, and honors the voice of youth across this great state. Then, by virtue of fair governance, and moral obligation. Must include these provisions, for the future of New York State. | ||
| Tim,Dunnigan | This plan to eliminate natural gas is not wise and is on a much too aggressive timeline. We are not ready for this. | ||
| JAMES,RISIUS | Vote NO! | ||
| LouAnn,Rossi | You need to get unpaid, unbiased experts who know what they are talking about. From a chemist, biologist, environmental expert, who is not on the take, an impartial and unbiased judge, this project is based on falsehoods, biased reporting, and they are also culling their analytical results to show what the liberals/uninformed, uneducated activists want to show. Follow the money. Let's be truthful and real about this. If you say every scientist is doing pure unbiased research and not affected by the grant money, you need to remove your head from the dark zone. I am being kind. GET REAL!!! | ||
| Raymond,Mirowski | This plan is ridiculous! Natural Gas is one of the most cost efficient resources we as New York State residents have come to rely on. This plan does not address the increased costs to consumers in any way! I would like to build a new home soon and to think I won't be able to heat it with natural gas, cook my food on a gas range, heat my water or dry my clothes using natural gas is preposterous! Electricity bills are already sky high, and since I live a mere 10 miles from Niagara Falls one would think electric service would be relatively inexpensive!! I whole heartedly DO NOT support this plan and feel this entire endeavor should be put to a public vote! If implemented, it will be yet another reason for NY residents to continue the mass exodus out of the state! I, for one, will not be sticking around!! | ||
| Beverly,Yaiko | Climate Action Council: I respectfully submit that I believe more research is needed on the consequences of your energy proposals. The information I have on so-called "green" energy (electric, wind and solar) cautions that the long term effects of utilizing these forms of energy will be more hazardous and damaging to the environment than gas and oil. One example is the article in the December 18, 2021 edition of the Jamestown Post-Journal highlighting the problem of disposing discarded windmill blades. I also have read articles on the serious manufacturing and disposal issues surrounding batteries and solar panels. New York State is rapidly losing population due to over-regulation. I fear your proposals will only accelerate that trend. Sincerely, Beverly A. Yaiko | ||
| Walter,Churpita | The people on this council have to get out of the fog at look at the world, climate change started the day our planet began, and will always be with us. Please look at the rest of the world, the US is very much on it's way to becoming a third world country. We can not do the things you are proposing without hurting us more. PLEASE WAKE UP POOR PEOPLE LIVE HERE! STOP | ||
| Julianne,Groff | Webster Comfort Care Home, Inc. | It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider getting rid of gas as a source of energy. Our current electric grid will never be able to support everyone - what happens to the elderly and sick during the winter months if they don't have electricity available 24/7 because the grid can only ration us a few hours a day? What about the people who own acres of land who mow? Our houses aren't set up for plugging in 2, 3, 4 electric cars, plus, those batteries do not last in the cold like they do in the warmer climates. If people need to switch to wood-burning stoves/fireplaces, our natural resources will become depleted that much quicker. What happens to boat owners, airplanes, etc.? PLEASE reconsider this ridiculous and impossible plan. It will never work and it will make our economy fail. | |
| Lawrence,Grosso | Majestic Tile | Your Plan to "De Carbonize " our economy is a plan to starve and depoulate the Earth. Additional Carbon in our atmosphere is beneficial to Humans as well as plants. A simple understanding of science and /or Biology would tell you that more carbon equals more plants, Trees, and food. As Human Beings, we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. This is why the air smells so much fresher when I travel outside the city to places like upstate New York. More trees equal more oxygen. The trees and plants are inhaling the carbon dioxide and exhaling Life-Giving oxygen. What part of this life sustaining process don't you crazy people understand. Why would you want to Decarbonize our planet, and who gave you the Authority to do so. Once again, we have "so-called" politicians doing the exact opposite of what people want. No gas stoves, No gas heat, no gas operated vehicles? Where are you going to get the Amount of Electricity needed to heat Homes, and re-charge electric car batteries. From Windmills? From Solar power? No way, No how. Solar power would come from our Sun, correct? Our Government has been spraying God knows what into our atmosphere to control global warming"(so we are told), for at least the past 30 years. Just look up in the sky and you can view all the trails. It's called "Geo Engineering". We have lost at least 25 to 30 percent of our sunlight as a result. In other words, the solar panels will NEVER soak in enough sunlight to power everything of which you speak. Also, we have some of the cleanest burning oil in the world and our Coal plants are held to strict environmental standards, unlike China and other parts of the world. Our US companies are producing Clean Energy. This "so called' Climate Action Council" should be abolished. You all should be charged with attempted Murder and Genocide, and that's being mild towards your complete Insanity. Your Proposals MUST BE DEFEATED! | |
| Thomas,Peterson | I have worked as a power line journeyman lineman and general foreman for a total of 15 yrs. This purposal is too ambitious with the electric car industry still in it's infancy stage with most manufacturers and electric demand at an all time high already. To upgrade the entire electrical grid in NYS alone will take more than the purposed allowance time. This will leave many residents with power outages and rolling blackouts. In example a 7gpm whole house on demand water heater requires 150amps to operate at maximum output. That's 36kva's just for hot water. That's a large draw when most homes have a 10kva transformer for a single feed and a 25kva transformer for multiple homes. Most newer homes have a 200amp service but never pull that kind of power at once. So you add the on demand electric water heater to the ac and microwave and you have kicked your breakers at the minimum. If the neighbors are doing the same thing then you all just kicked the transformer. If the whole town is doing the same, then the whole grid is off! Please reconsider and take the necessary steps to get to your goal. We must ensure that the foundation is set before we build for an electric dependent society. We don't even have reliable electricity supply without coal, nuclear, or natural gas since the majority of the demand is in the evenings. NYS gets a lot of electricity from our neighbors already and what happens when they don't have enough to spare!? | ||
| Lynn,Tondrick | I respectfully request that the language regarding existing fossil fuel plants be strengthened The needs of disadvantaged communities must be a focus on planning. Many such communities already bear the brunt of polluting fossil fuel plants. . The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities “should be considered.” (p. 156) The language should be stronger, not just considered but in the forefront of decision making. . Communities that are disadvantaged often have multiple sources of significant pollution, not just their local power plant. These communities are dumping grounds for all unwanted industries for generations. | ||
| Lynn,Tondrick | I believe we need to strengthen the area of the plan with regard to the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants. The Scoping Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plans over time which is great and is needed, but we also need a firmer commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants (p. 155) And should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, it should be very clear that the cost of such retrofitting will not fall on ratepayers because in time the plant will become a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. thank you. Lynn Tondrick Climate Concerned Citizen. | ||
| Timmie,Stockman | I am against New York's plan to put an end to any new natural gas connections and appliances. If you make everyone depend solely on electricity for home heating, domestic hot water, and all appliances, you are setting us all up for disaster! The plan to depend on so-called "green energy" to supply our electricity needs is not practical or achievable. You will drive up the cost of our electricity so nobody will be able to afford to live in New York State. Our Democrat leadership in this state has driven people and business out of the state for years and this trend is continuing to this day. Working people are leaving and taking their money and business with them. New York's generous "social safety net" makes it very attractive for people who want to live off the system though. These type of people will continue to flock to New York. I am also very concerned with the destruction of our land to install wind turbines and solar panels. It is a farce to call these things green energy. They are anything but green and they can not possibly generate enough electricity to fill our needs. In the meantime, our hilltops and farmland is being destroyed for these massive projects. By the way, installing wind turbines out in our Great Lakes is absolutely insane! The idea of polluting our biggest fresh water supply with massive concrete footers and transmission lines is beyond stupid. It's insane. We need to maintain our affordable natural gas system and gasoline powered automobiles until the day when real alternatives are available. We are not at that place right yet. Wind and solar are NOT the answer and this plan will be the biggest state boondoggle ever if you go ahead with it. | ||
| Jean,Feuchter | The proposal to limit natural gas use is a hardship for New Yorkers. My natural gas stove works during electrical outages and heating my home with natural gas is far less expensive than solar or electricity. | ||
| Peter,Wasiela | I'm against all this nonsense about going all electric and solar. I am not changing my household to all electric nor am I buying electric cars or trucks. I do not believe I will be able to plow snow with a electric truck and I definitely would not be able to afford one nor the battery that runs it. If New York state comes to this then unfortunately my wife and I will have to sell our grape farms and home and move out of this state. Theses proposals are going to hurt a lot of working class people and businesses. | ||
| Louise,Lampson lh | I am totally against this climate plan. Without the use of natural gas, our energy costs will skyrocket. The price of gas is already at an all time high, hurting the poor and middle class. This plan will crush the affordability of living for families, drive up the cost of doing business and destroy economic opportunity. New York has already driven many families out of our state. If this legislation is passed, you will see a huge exit of families and businesses from our state. I do not want government telling me what kind of car I can drive or how I heat my home. Renewable sources are not advanced enough to provide the energy we need at a reasonable price and our electric grid would not be able to handle the increased demand for electricity. I encourage you to rethink this plan. | ||
| Charles,Hoshal | Green energy is great, it takes time to make changes without bankrupting our entire state ! | ||
| Julie,Hoshal | How can we survive with only electricity as our energy source? It's insanity. We live in rural western New York and we lost our electricity THREE times in ONE week in March 2022. This definitely would cause more residents & businesses to leave NYS. This is not a change that should be implemented so quickly. | ||
| Daniel,Brewster | I can appreciate the concern for our environment and the desire to reduce emissions, but the goal of net zero carbon emissions and forcing people to electrify by banning gas vehicles and appliances will have disastrous economic effects. Low-income households will disproportionately be negatively impacted. Most homes do not have the electrical capacity to support electric heat, appliances and vehicle charging. In addition to the higher cost of electric vs. gas heat, appliances and vehicles, homeowners will also have to incur the significant expense to upgrade their entire home’s electrical system. Additionally, electric is much more expensive than natural gas per energy unit so the long term cost of use will be greater. Many homeowners will be forced to abandon their homes because they can’t afford to transition to all electric. Or they will have to rely on wood-burning fireplaces and boilers. Electric school buses and school buildings will increase the tax burden on communities. All of these increased expenses will result in mass exodus of the population from NY. | ||
| Mary,Reger | Eliminating reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. Reject these plans to hike energy costs. | ||
| Shannon,Jones | Vote No. Those in the state of NY, not just the cities in NY, rely on propane or natural gas. You cannot vote yes on the measure without visiting rural NY. In a massive snow storm power goes out. You would be leaving all of those people without heat sources. Our propane fire places still work. We aren’t cold. If you make us all go to electric, and an ice storm occurs people will freeze. Please consider everyone in this state. Don’t just look at this from the perspective of a large city. You owe us that. We elected you for a reason don’t leave the rest behind. If I had a vote it would be a very strong NO. | ||
| Anne Marie,Strivings | My concern with this new proposal is that we are making changes too quickly. The proposed timelines prevent New Yorkers from making changes to their own budgets creating a situation that will lead to more New Yorkers to leave the State. In addition, a great deal of the changes need to occur in the City at the expense of the rest of the State. Even though the changes are important, they need to be done a little more slowly so WE CAN BUDGET TO PAY FOR IT. Have we looked at all options? Is there the infrastucture present TODAY to support converting ALL to using electric and wind as the power source of choice? Do we have the necessary battery options for absorbing and storing solar power for daily use? Are existing homeowners expected to convert to electric OR will they be grandfathered in? Will these changes be forced upon us creating a situation that will bring us back to the Seventies, when wood stoves were used to provide the necessary heat source for one's home. Has options, such as incentivizing and encouraging businesses to allow employees to work from home, thus reducing gas powered vehicle use be considered a permanent option? Biodiesal is a viable option for vehicles--why isn't this being considered? Biodiesal does not emit much GHG. Nuclear fusion is currently being explored as a near future option. Again, can we look at making changes more slowly in order to incorporate this new idea ( Bill Gates is doing this now in Wyoming). Please consider Middle Class America and the financial burden this is creating. Creating these changes over the course of a longer time period will ease the financial burden while allowing for new ideas to be generated regarding creating clean energy for all. --Anne Marie Strivings | ||
| Joshua,Trichon | Hi! This is a mock legislative testimony that I submitted for my Environmental Justice Law class that I thought I would submit as an actual comment. Please see attached! Thank you for your hard work. | has attachment | |
| Kevin,Bronner | Albany Research in Public Administration | March 26, 2022 Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority should require that a dashboard be established to measure the ongoing reliability of the electric system in New York State. During the winter of 2021 the State of Texas suffered a cold spell and there were numerous problems with the reliability of the electric system. New York State should work with the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. to develop a System Reliability Index (SRI) to show the risk of blackouts or other negative events associated with the electricity system. The SRI could assign risk probabilities for a blackout event using several factors such as (1) the amount of reliable base load electric system sources online; (2) the risks associated with the electricity transmission network in New York State; (3) the risk associated with other electric assets such as solar and wind power; (4) the risk to the system from the computer hacking of its operations and (5) the risk from stored electricity assets such as battery systems. Additional variables could be included in the SRI if needed as the electricity system changes over time. The SRI could be established and updated daily as the electricity system changes. Simulations could be run to determine how the electricity system would respond to specific events. The events could include but are not limited to: (1) prolonged heat waves; (2) prolonged droughts; (3) excessive thunder storms and hurricanes; (4) prolonged cold spells; (5) disruption of fuel supplies such as natural gas; and (6) human events such as computer hacking of system assets. Respectfully submitted, Kevin M. Bronner, Ph.D. Albany Research in Public Administration ***** Loudonville, NY 12211 | |
| Elizabeth ,Wolf | The future plan to eliminate natural gas etc for new homes is absolutely outrageous. How will people heat their homes? The leftist plan to dominate and control the people will not work.. | ||
| Russell,Gaiser | Retired | We don’t have the infrastructure to do what you are planning. Don’t you think you should get alternative sources in place before banning fossil fuels. We are the most climate considerate country on the planet. Check your data. | |
| Debra,Reifenrath | I encourage you to NOT vote in this plan. Everyone talks about electric cars and solar energy but never tell you WHAT will you do with all the Lithium waste from all of those electric cars. And where do you find a recharging station in Wyoming, Montana and even in the Adirondacks when you are in the middle of no where ? Not alone, what happens when the raw materials for manufacturing them dry up ? Especially since you can't count on people actually taking their batteries to a recycling center ( how many people really recycle any batteries - no one will ever know ) Of course there is also the fact that in NYS we get less than 120 days of Sunny days, but you can the manipulate the numbers which seems to be the way most people do things to make it appear that we get more than that. If you count partly sunny ( definition being 40%-70% of the sky covered from clouds) then you can make the case for more sunny days. What do you think will happen to the solar panels when they are no longer producing ? They often contain lead, cadmium and other chemicals that are toxic and RECYCLING of panels is not just a simple thing. But no one wants to discuss those things and as with politics the journalists are all willing to give only one side of the story. The "good side". You have the power to stop this now. I urge you to do so and start thinking about the population as a whole and about those who are going to pay the price from your decisions years from now. | ||
| Alina,Freeman | The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. I encourage Albany to REJECT these plans to hike energy costs. Just stop it. Say No. | ||
| Daryl,Damcott | The banning of natural gas service and natural gas appliances in New York State is a narrow-minded approach and thoughtless misrepresentation of the needs of NYS residents. Many New Yorkers have reliable cooking and heating energy needs met through the efficient use of natural gas. The overreach being displayed by NYS to limit the options towards AFFORDABLE and RELIABLE energy sources in the name of “environmental responsibility” is the misguided and unwarranted. The energy infrastructure does not exist to allow cost-efficient and reliable electricity without the supplement of natural gas solutions. Not to mention, the fact that you are proposing to eliminate a preferred method of home cooking with natural gas and efficient heating with natural gas for hot water supply for bathing/baseboard boiler/laundry needs. To convert homes from existing energy efficient natural gas to all electric would be outside of the affordability of majority of NY households. The people of NY are already strapped by the burden of high taxes and governmental overspending. Do not continue to alienate the hardworking citizens of the state with more dictation of what you THINK are our interests but really are the furthering of personal political interests under the guise of “energy” conservation when most of the applications of natural gas energy are much more efficient and more carbon neutral than the alternative electrical options given the production, installation and decommissioning outputs of those sources. Please, for once, show better judgment in the interest of real New York residents and keep natural gas options and infrastructure in place. | ||
| alex,gibson | This bill is a crime against working New Yorkers. "Green energy" is a nightmare. Expensive and ineffective at providing our energy needs. I will vote against any legislator supporting this or any other tax wasting government green energy scheme. Clean the land, water, and air. Clear metrics, not sequestering carbon dioxide (plant food). | ||
| Gregory,Cecil | New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) Is wrong and imposes a massive hardship on our citizens. End this evil and vote against this plan. | ||
| Karen,Strickland | First, where is all the electricity coming from to accommodate vehicles, homes? We just had our home updated with more amps and purchased high energy electric hot water tank, electric washer, dryer, and electric stove. This was a lot of money for retirees, which no credit was given on our income taxes. This needs to be in the newspaper and on TV news so people know there are no credits for housing updates. What is the monthly payment for these electric cars, how many years to pay for them, how much is the insurance? In rural areas, where our winters are fierce, what happens if these vehicles get stuck and where will the hook up be another added expense to the middle class and small businesses, who are the backbone of our country. You people who make a lot of money will not feel the impact like the middle class. You can pass laws without the thought of impact, especially living in New York State, which I always have been proud to call home, but not anymore. Caring about the climate is important, but what you want is pushy and a more expensive life for people. Doing away with fossil fuel is a big mistake, cannot depend on electricity like you can natural gas, oil, and coal. What about these foreign countries, who are really the polluters of the world, nothing happens to them, but will the hard working people of New York State have a REAL say so in all of this. We certainly hope so, because totally shutting down fossil fuel is a huge mistake!!!!!! | ||
| Molly ,Liberto | Our region cannot operate without access to gas / natural gas | ||
| Sally A,Hand | I am totally disgusted with the suggestion that everything needs to go electric and all other types of fuel be eliminated.This is a socialist agenda which in the future will never work especially with the consideration that electricity is so unreliable. I totally disagree with the climate action council's plan and pray that the Senate will not allow this to pass. Sincerely yours, Sally a hand | ||
| Lynn,Spillane | This is all nuts! | ||
| John,Lauzze | Totally apposed to your climate change goal. This needs to be voted on by the people of New York. If you are trying to break the middle class this will do it. | ||
| Michael,Anderson | National Fuel Gas Company | I’m concerned about the recommendations contained in the draft Scoping Plan released which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in NY. I strongly disagree with the virtual elimination of natural gas from our homes, businesses, schools, industry/manufacturers, and other public facilities. This will be extremely costly and require unreasonably substantial resources. Converting energy systems to all electricity-based sources will require renewable energy development at an unrealistic scale and power grid expansion an unattainable level. On top of that, the proposed changes would require individual conversion of millions of homes and businesses across the state. The plan doesn’t contain any meaningful consumer cost estimates for the required conversions and expansions and there are no assurances that these costs (experts estimate $25,000 to $50,000 per Upstate New York household) won’t be passed along to New York’s residents. That works out to $10 to $25 billion in expenses for Western New York alone. The Plan’s sole reliance on electricity would no doubt result in a substantial and unfair increases in cost to consumers. Western New Yorkers can’t afford additional expenses. Buffalo is the third poorest city in the nation with many residents stretched to capacity. Natural gas is simply more affordable. Electricity prices are 3.5x higher. The power grid will not be able to support increased demand for winter heating and electric vehicles. Reports published from NYISO indicate the operator’s concerns about declining levels of reliability as early as 2023. Existing electric-based clean energy technologies can’t meet power demand much less maintain reliability. As a worker of a Western New York company, I noticed too that the Plan doesn’t recognize the significant differences between Upstate vs. Downstate New York. Upstate would be impacted far more negatively, due to its colder, harsher weather, older, larger housing stock and comparative | |
| Jeff,Black | Our leaders lack the knowledge and fail in their research for facts. Yes we need to make changes but without bringing life to its knees. The majority of the people can not afford to make these changes to their homes and already struggling businesses. Much like bail reform has created people wanting to purchase more guns and ammunition or manufacture their own the same will happen with energy. We need more input for a realistic implementation plan. Let the people vote on the plan to move forward. | ||
| Richard,Ewell | US Citizen | I oppose this plan. On so many levels, and in so many ways it is untenable. Massive numbers of people are being forced to vote with their feet and leave this beautiful state. Does anyone really believe that NY causes huge issues with “greenhouse gasses?” India, China and other such countries produce more pollution in one day, than NY busiessss/households produce in a year. Also, some people live in NY because they like the climate/seasons. We need and want to be able to use gas/oil/wood etc. it is really not the business of our unelected bureaucrats to impose their unproven remedies to this unproven problem on our state citizens. If my neighbor wants to go “all electric” then God bless him for his opinion. He is free to do so. NY is no longer free, and these radical laws are ruining our state. Electric is not reliable enough to trust our lives to. Much of the renewable energy system materials are produced by enemy states. I live in Wellsville and I like to drive my GAS POWERED F150. It is nobody else’s business. I like to burn wood in my wood stove and fire place and like to use my gas powered chainsaw to cut the wood. Leave me alone. | |
| Michael,Warner | Good afternoon, Your aggressive plan to eliminate fossil fuels in NYS is much too soon and well before it's time. We are not ready! With your projected plan, will our electric grid be capable of supporting the increased demand? This is a huge transition and will cost NYS residents much more to heat their homes, dry their clothes, cook their meals, and drive their cars or recreational vehicles. Many homeowners will have to upgrade their electric panel in their homes. Most will have to replace their heating and cooling systems as well as their appliances and vehicles. Maybe you can afford it, but most cannot, including myself. Most residents heat with natural gas and many struggle with those bills. The difference between the cost of electricity to heat your home and the cost of Natural Gas is huge, and that is at today's electric rates. No doubt our electric rates will go up as demand increases. With inflation continuing on the path it is today, this is just unrealistic to force on our residents. This plan will drastically affect the middle and lower class, placing more people on government assistance. Please consider changing your plans to transition from fossil fuels to electric over a much more realistic time frame. Your proposed aggressive approach is completely illogical. By the way, how much of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels? Thank you | ||
| jim,tucker | This plan has good intentions-but will have negative results. The USA has reduced our carbon emissions by 50% over the last 14 years by doing 1 thing-we moved our utilities from coal to natural gas. The energy of the future is natural gas, its clean,cheap,abundant and reliable. Green energy is clean but not reliable or cheap. This regulation will only drive more businesses out of NY, because heating and lighting them will be significantly more expensive here. NY has lost 15 seats in congress over the last 30 years due to high taxes and regulations like this. Here in our county we have lost 4 large employers (2 to Penn, 2 to South Carolina) in the last 4 yrs. Renewable energy will someday be abundant and cheap, but that will take another 20 yrs. In Europe they tried to move to fast to green energy and became dependent on russia for energy-with tragic results. | ||
| Mark,Wilson | Self | Going to zero carbon simply won't work. The expense to New Yorkers will be tremendous; energy costs will skyrocket. Simply study California and Germany, please. Every engineering undertaking involves tradeoffs, and you should always remember the acronym TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Do you realize that concrete is one of the biggest sources of CO2? Every wind turbine you use will use tons of concrete, emitting CO2. The giant blades cannot be recycled after their 15 to 20 year life. They will be buried in landfills, and replaced at a great cost. Solar panels and batteries involve the mining and refining of enormous amounts of toxic minerals, some pretty rare, and from countries with terrible human rights practices. Solar panels will also need replacement in roughly 20 years. Who is going to recycle the Li batteries from millions of cars? If you want to eliminate CO2, the single best alternative is nuclear power. Do your own research into the safety of nuclear before you dismiss it. PLEASE don't shut down any more nuclear power plants. If all these plans go through, the exodus from NYS will be like a tsunami, including myself. I urge you to carefully consider all the tradeoffs and learn about the actual physics and engineering involved in your plans. I guarantee this will be a huge disaster if all these plans are enacted. | |
| bill,verhag | these proposals are 100% fantasy. gas is the cheapest+least polluting way to heat+cook with.your #1 problem with electric is the high cost of upgrading the electric grid. which is what you have to do first.once again you got the cart in front of the horse,and it won't work no matter what you make up these rules. | ||
| n | My husband and I are in our late 60's and on fixed incomes. We live in a rural area where there is no mass transit and all the stores are miles away and we get alot of snow in the wintertime. Our furnace is natural gas our stove and water heater is natural gas. With the rate of inflation and the cost of new appliances and such these days we will not be able to afford new ones. And unless the cost of electric vehicles comes down significantly we will not be able to afford that either on fixed incomes. Will our electric suppliers be able to handle the influx? We will be forced to move out of New York which we have called home since we were both born. I am getting the feeling that the attitude of younger people is that the older people don't count for anything anymore and are not counted in on any decisions made by government(which is mostly made up of life time politicians who are 70 years old or older especially in Washington). I find that amusing but then again they won't have to worry about it with their millions of dollars they earn from our hard earned tax dollars. | ||
| kevin,Deegan | After losing our jobs due to covid, skyrocketing prices, I have to Believe the plan is to BANKRUPT us all | ||
| Steven,Rankin | At this time, the power grid is in my mind not reliable enough for me as a homeowner to covert to all electrical heat and cooling. I WILL NOT change over from my natural gas heat and back up generator until MAJOR upgrades are done on the power grid to provide full uninterrupted power at all times. While there is no guaranty gas lines won't fail in a major winter storm, so far, they have been 100% reliable and I have had heat and hot water during major electrical power outages. As to building a new home with all electrical, I am not at this time considering it however, I find it most displeasing to be forced into relying on a non reliable source for heat and cooling. Over all, I DO NOT support this plan and will most certainly vote agains anyone whom embraces it until major renovations are done to assure total reliability of the electrical power grid. Stop wasting my money on nonsense and spend it on upgrading services and infrastructure. | ||
| Jacalyn ,Dinhofer | I am opposed to the CHPE plan bringing Canadian electricity to NYC via the Hudson River. We should be building out renewables now. | ||
| Linda,Randolph | At times the electric capacitor blow up leaving my area in the dark. Because of that I bought and whole house generator which is powered by natural gas. In ten seconds I have electric. Are there going to be back up power if the electric grid gets hacked with out natural gas? When the gas furnace was broke at my sister's rental she started using electric heaters it cost $2400. For only two months. What about homes that have poor insulation and old windows. There are a lot of things that seems to not have been considered for your cause. Electric is a coal based energy. Coal is dirtier the natural gas. In my opinion you are all over reaching and the cost will be bared to every day American. All that you want to do and have us buy. We can't afford it. | ||
| Scott,Toly | We've seen the results of the green new deal pushed on other states; remember the state wide power outage in Texas last winter? Are some additional sources of renewable energy good; yes! Mainly hydro electric; not the soon to be superfund sites politicians call solar fields. Or the bird killing and view disrupting windmills that are never guaranteed to make more energy than was put into making them. We have several hydroelectric power plants and dams that have become inoperable and essentially unrepairable due to age. If we look at the history of those; we can assume that maintenance and eventually disposal of defunct windmills or solar panels will be paid for by future generations trying remove heavy metals from soil from the solar fields and burying gigantic windmill blades. Fix what we have; then I might trust your decisions to add more problems for our children to deal with | ||
| Jeffrey,Courter | First Presbyterian Church of Forest Hills NY | As a Christian minister, I see climate action as a moral issue, for it affects all of creation. Global warming affects the poor and marginalized most of all, as we have seen with recent hurricanes in New York City. Where I live, in Queens, people drowned in basement apartments because Hurricane Ida dumped so much water into the city that it flooded, and people in low-income basement units were trapped and died. Hurricanes and storms, as well as wildfires, are increasing, due to global warming. We cannot take time to slowly convert off fossil fuels - the time to transition was yesterday, not tomorrow. Rising seas from melting polar caps are already threatening the NYC shoreline. Yet there is hope. New York can show international leadership by investing in wind and solar power, by converting existing buildings from fossil fuel heat to electric, and by investing in electric-powered public transportation. By taking concrete steps, we can reduce poor health outcomes caused by our damaged environment, improving the lives of those most impacted by climate change by reducing the growth of the greenhouse gases that create these problems. I urge the most aggressive planning to convert from coal, oil and gas use and transition to renewable sources to generate electricity immediately. Otherwise, more lives may be wasted needlessly. | |
| Eric,Knolles | Waverly CSD, Tioga County IDA, WBA | Climate Team, I understand the importance of moving our state into a better carbon emission situation. I am very concerned as a school leader of the impact for busing, our residents in poverty, and people who's only heat option is oil or kerosene. These people are not going to use the government policies to overhaul their systems. We are seeing large amount of homeless in the Southern Tier for the first time as people refuse to get on state assistance programs. I am afraid the way this is going to roll out will further disenfranchise these people and cause greater rural poverty and distress. I think you need to engage both parties in discussion before jamming this policy forward. Best wishes. Dr. Eric Knolles | |
| Randy,Good | I understand the ultimate goals. Everybody wants the cleanest water, the most fresh air. Ramming through some of the proposals I've seen will most certainly achieve those goals by chasing more people out of New York State. The only people left will be those that can not afford to move. I live in a very rural area and we need natural gas to heat our home and water, not to mention cook and dry clothes. I like chocolate cake, I don't like it rammed down my throat. You people seem to think that taxpayers will just suck it up and comply. Let me tell you, folks like you and your agendas are causing folks like us to leave this State in droves. | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Color Penfield Green | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| James,Keough | I am pleased to see NYS take the lead on the future of our energy needs. I've read the plan and concur with its proposals. Keep up the good work! | ||
| Dennis,Hensel | City of Salamanca Board of Public Utili ties | I run a Public Utility. I am notifying our customers that they will have to give up their natural gas appliances and forced air furnaces eventually and it just makes them angry. We operate in an area where our customers have been seeing electric costs rise way over that of gas when our electric rates were until recently, lower than average. Telling them they must convert to an expensive all electric model, is a tough sell and it is the Utilities being asked to be the bearer of the bad news for the customer and then shoulder the brunt of the animus that is resulting. My Staff and customers from what I gather, feel this is moving way too fast. I am for getting rid of Oil heat, Coal burning power plants but not natural gas. As the name implies, it is natural. if we stop using natural gas, it does not make it go away...why ignore a natural resource? Lately, I see the Gas Company out repairing their lines and adding new ones more than they used to or so it seems, I am seeing homes that were taken off natural gas by previous owners being reconnected. I pity the person that tells them to remove it 2 or 20 years down the road. YES we need renewables! I totally agree, but we are cramming this through too fast to make up for all the years of inaction on Governments' blame. Electric cars, fine, I'm all for it, but telling someone to give up Natural Gas--no way, you will drive people out of the state for more lenient states. NY wants to say it was the first in the nation to go totally green by 2050...It is a bragging right that comes with a steep price if the CAC does not stop and re-evaluate the priorities. | |
| Stephanie ,Milks | The arbitrary climate “legislation” that New York State has taken on lacks thought and planning and will ultimately result in more harm than good. Requiring all appliances and cars and heat sources to transition to electric in an already taxed grid is irresponsible, irrational and impossible. Wind and solar is intermittent and inefficient. Snow and pollen and dust drastically reduce solar panel efficiencies and wind turbines have only about 18% efficiency as recorded in the NYSISO’s Gold Standard book after causing serious environmental destruction to construct. California needs to impose rolling blackouts because their “renewable” grid can not sustain the electrical load of their state. Not to mention the cost burden to the very population you are claiming that you care about. Low income households will be severely impacted by the unrealistic schedule to transition to all electric on top of the skyrocketing tax burden NYS is imposing on all of us to erect these useless contraptions that allow out of state, billion dollar companies to both take tax credits and receive tax breaks while you crush New York’s residents with the bill. Do NOT allow further arbitrary climate legislative actions until you have thoroughly researched and thought of the long term, adverse ramifications to the New York State residents and the environment. This is climate change acceleration and eco destruction waiting to happen. What do you think all of the batteries are made of? Along with the wind turbines and solar panels? They are made of an ungodly amount of NON-renewable materials! | ||
| Matt,Bagar | Will Governor Hochul be providing stimulus payments for the increase in utility cost associated with an all-electric home? Will New York State provide grant money to replace a natural gas furnace with an electric furnace? I will not be providing funding to convert my perfectly working home to an all-electric home. | ||
| Cathy,McConnell | Long Islanders for Climate Justice | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| suzie,ross | Green Ossining | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure | |
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrivolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | ||
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| Gary,Shaffer | I strongly urge that you do not adopt the climate actions councils plan banning reliable energy sources .. Natural gas is efficient and economical heating source . New York has already banned fracking which has already affected landowners who used leasing fees to pay our exorbitant land taxes . Banning natural gas to knew homes is idiotic natural gas appliances are very reliable. They have a long way to go on electric cars and trucks. In the future we might come up with better choices . Free trade should drive the market not legislation . | ||
| Adrienne,Kinkade | As a resident, not only of Williamsville, NY USA, but of planet Earth, I feel strongly that climate change is the number one problem that we face today. Our planet cannot survive if we continue the path we are on right now, and drastic change needs to occur TODAY. As a citizen of this nation, I worry about how we will continue to handle the problems our disadvantaged communities face due to pollution, high lead levels and carbon emissions. Not to mention the problem of displaced people from other nations coming here to seek refuge as increasingly severe weather causes their towns to flood, their crops to die and their homes to be destroyed. I tire of hearing complaints about solar farms taking over "good farmland". No one is farming this land. Which would my neighbors in Amherst and Williamsville prefer to see? More land used for houses, more cars on the roads and increased traffic? Or a field of solar panels making energy, with smarter housing solutions instead of constant sprawl? Moving to a more renewable plan for energy will not be easy. Nothing worth doing ever is. It is true that New Yorkers are being hit by increased prices, but most of these increased energy costs have to do with our reliance on imported oil from from foreign governments who hold our economy in their hands. Why not break from this vice grip and find ways to create our own energy that will not be subject to the whims of foreign dictators? As a child in the 80's and 90's, I heard all about the problems pollution was creating, and at the time I looked at my parents and grandparents and asked "Why? Why don't you do something?" Here I am now finding myself in the same situation, with my teenage children questioning me, why am I not working harder to fix this mess, instead of leaving it for them? How many more generations will have to ask the same questions? | ||
| Robb,MacGregor | As a WNY resident, I feel that our state's decision to drive change is without regard for the whole states economy will be devastating. Failing to look at the complete picture will be a great injustice. This is not California it is New York State we have severe weather here. Businesses can't afford this. We have the right to use whatever energy source that is available. You work for US don't forget that! | ||
| Mary,Beilby | Support municipalities in converting fleets to non-fossil fuel quickly. | ||
| Brenda,Billings | self | The average New Yorker does not have the money to go solar or buy a windmill. We rely on the clean natural source natural gas. To switch from this completely or punish the people who don't comply , would mean a huge burden to us, and secondly would create a huge exodus from this state, meaning many of us will just move to another state. The taxes in this state are already more than we can bare. Just take a ride around small communities in New York state and you will see vast poverty. But that is probably what you intended. | |
| Thomas,Barberich | I believe we need natural gas as an energy source and I Reject motor vehicles all electric in NYS , what about commercial airlines and the jet fuel emissions they produce , I bet you won’t do anything about that , more NYS … BS | ||
| Jacob,Kozlowski | There are several problems with this plan, it's starting from a place of confirmation bias.. which in turn is causing you to overlook some key issues. January 1, 2024 – BAN ANY NEW NATURAL GAS SERVICE to existing homes and buildings as well as newly constructed homes and buildings; Millions of homes in NY use Natural Gas for heating, water, electric generation, and cooking. This will lower property values to near $0 - nobody will be able to sell their property. 2030, ban the sale of natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying; This will cost residents of the state thousands of dollars to upgrade, and will continue to cost more year after year as electric is less efficient than natural gas. 2035, ban the sale of gasoline powered automobiles - Currently there are 4 issues with electric vehicles: 1) the batteries are not clean enough to produce and do not hold enough energy to be a direct replacement 2) batteries don't charge quickly enough to be useable 3) batteries die in the cold, the range on an ev in the winter is 1/2 or less of it's summertime charge 4) we don't have the infrastructure to support charging ev's (in either sense - "juice" stations or the power grid integrity) The cost of this measure will be in the trillions of dollars. You're trying to force a change when you haven't looked at all of the data. Are you going to buy every house and business that uses natural gas? Are you going to pay for all of the upgrades? IF Not, you better start running a surplus budget now, it'll take a few hundred years to pay for what you're planning. | ||
| Denise,Hovey | To the Climate Council, I am truly concerned, frightened at the proposals to end any new natural gas service within the next two years, the proposal to not be able to purchase a natural gas appliance and the proposal in the next 13 years to not be able to purchase a gas powered vehicle.. The idea that we would have to invest in unreliable alternative energy sources, much less be able to afford the cost of implementing them is unrealistic. Please, I beg of you to come out to the rest of New York State, where I have called home for 50 years, and see what your proposals will do to the rural communities. My father has been a dairy farmer for 50 years, and he has seen a lot of changes in the dairy industry. In the last 6-7 years energy costs are making it impossible to operate and even make the smallest profit. The equipment he has multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in to work the fields, feed the cattle, transport the milk and so many many more things are gas powered. How do you propose to make things better for him? Doesn't he count? The 26 people he employs, don't they count? These proposals are so over the top, they just don't make any common sense. I am all for the continuation of finding reliable energy alternatives, but you seem to want to destroy our economy and way of life by making it impossible to operate. Please have mercy on New York residents that cannot afford your ideas. We have ideas, come talk to us. We would love to share our desires to work, live among our neighbors and have something to leave our children with you. I am afraid my children won't be able to afford to live here. I know they won't and frankly, I have told them to plan on living out of state. The choke hold the state has on is has grown too tight. | ||
| Stephen,Howe | The entire plan is a government plan to erode the rights and freedoms on New Yorker's, and through coercion, the rights and freedom of other United States citizens due to the fact you specifically state NY itself can't make a global difference. You want to take away my land rights, my freedom of travel, the freedom to make a living, the freedom to provide for my family. Just so a bunch of social elites who don't have any idea, or care, about what the citizens of New York who actually live outside your urban, super polluting, resource abusing, hate filled, dumps, can feel good about cutting down OWN trees, taking away OUR resources, steal OUR power, so you can signal to other C.U.L.T. members you're better then us. This will be yet another reason for me to leave NY, for my children to leave once they can, and for my grand children to celebrate their parents leaving this beautiful, plentiful state destroyed by the likes of those who wrote & support this plan. | ||
| David H.,Crowley | The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. | ||
| Percy,Sherman | In whole I want to voice my opinion on this "Green New Deal" plan. First and foremost, our present government has placed a tremendous burden on all its citizens. We have enough oil to be energy efficient and I surely did not vote to end fossil fuels and go all electric. Secondly, Who is going to be able to afford to purchase an all electric vehicle, let alone be able to afford to maintain it. Our properties are getting polluted by all these solar panels that in fact will not support any moderate electricity need. Third, Since Joe Biden has ruined the jobs and industry in our country. Open the dang oil fields and stop with this go green nonsense. It's fine to slowly add it in, but for the left side that is in dire needs for it. I should not have to go into dept anymore because AOC and the democrats want to shove this down my throat. We have politicians that need to wake up to reality and open the dang oil drilling because come November 2022, I can feel a definite Red Wave coming. In closing, NY needs industry to come back! We need jobs and good ones. Has any politician even walked the cities, towns and villages to observe all the druggies, and persons out of work. It's totally discusting. Repeal the safe act, the raise the age, bail reform and make needles and marijuana illegal again. Now we all have to smell the nasty marijuana smell that polluting our society. Thank you for your time! Percy Sherman | ||
| David,CLEARY | Pudgies Pizza, Pasta & Subs / Aces & Eights General Stores | NYS should be lowering and/or eliminating its gasoline and diesel tax, altogether! With hyperinflation, unemployment at historical highs, Covid, why would anyone consider doing this now, let alone ever. NYS needs to reverse Cumo's project for bail and fix our state, and drug problems. New Yorkers have ever HAD TO PAY this FOR GASOLINE/ DIESEL, and your suggesting we pay more, NUTS. Other states and country's, have suspended thyre taxes, too bad for all New Yorkers , this hasn't been done yet! YOU ARE HURTING EVERY TAXPAYER REGUARDLESS OF INCOME BRACKET IN OUR STATE, by not acting in best interest of taxpayers. We will loose millions of tax dollars if you increase our existing gasoline and diesel tax to border states, and loose additional revenue other states residents coming into NY to purchase and spend they're money in NYS. DONT BE FOOLISH, LAST YEAR OVER 110,000 LEFT OUR STATE FOR MORE REASONIBLE STATE'S TAX RATES. BY BASICALLY OUTLAWING NATURAL GAS IN 2024 AND APPLIANCES IT WILL BE THE FINAL NAIL IN NEW YORKS COFFIN. .WE DONT HAVE THE INFACTURE TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS NONSENSE AND INCREASE COST TO DO THIS WILL PREVENT NEW CONSTUCTION. | |
| Barbara,Kubiak | Have not finished reading the Draft-Scoping Plan however, I am not sure if schools fall under commercial buildings or otherwise. This article came across my desk today and it warrants some thought. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/21/1084912552/climate-change-schools | ||
| David,Heary | To whom it may concern, I am writing today to express my sincere concern for you plans to eliminate natural gas distribution and eventually eliminate gasoline powered automobiles in a period of approximately 13 years. My wife and I depend on natural gas to heat our home, water and dry out clothes. You expect to eliminate this by 2024. I am not sure if you realize it or not, but many of us cannot afford to retrofit our homes in that time span. I am an electrician and know the requirements to make my home all electric. I promise you, I cannot afford that. Even if you eliminate my property tax for several years to offset the cost, I could not afford it. Not to mention the electric grid where I live is NOT reliable. We have several interruptions every quarter. Also, it is not adequate to supply the necessary electricity to the homes in this area required to heat them. Secondly, until there is an AFFORDABLE supply of electric automobiles, you CANNOT eliminate gasoline powered vehicles. I am not sure where you Committee members live, but I guessing it is somewhere public transportation and cheap electricity exists? We have a a very small public transportation system in Allegany County that will not meet the needs of my family and many others. This proposals will cripple the poor in my area and drive many to leave for a State that is affordable. Please, do not enact these extreme policies. Your Constituents CANNOT afford this yet. I am not against alternative energy, yet I am against further damaging the economy and impoverishing millions of people. Many of them the marginalized that you seek to protect. Remember, the best way to eat an elephant is ONE bite at a time. Sincerely, David K. Heary | ||
| Jim,Bowman | As a small business owner, I find it obserd that they want to outlaw natural gas appliances. Very low emissions to are created by natural gas. An entire country can not rely on one source of energy alone. Gasoline powered vehicles have the ability to get twice the fuel mileage they are currently getting. Less fuel being burnt creates less emissions. The destruction created to mine for lithium and other products to create the batteries is very destructive to the earth. Then there are safety concerns with the batteries. Then the old batteries that get sent to a land fill. I would think the EPA would frown on all of this. If everything is powered off the electric grid another country could cripple us very easily. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the Climate Action Plan: The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that all state agencies proactively align their policies and procedures with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. If such alignment requires new legislation, such legislation should be recommended. The Public Service Commission is an example of an agency whose actions will greatly affect how successful the implementation of the CLCPA is, as this is the agency that oversees all utilities in the state. The contraction of fossil gas will require major supervision by the PSC. The PSC oversees the provision of electricity, including billing rates, which affects the affordability of running heat pumps for heating and cooling, as well as other appliances. It is critical to the success of building electrification that the PSC and all State agencies hew closely to the goals laid out by the CLCPA. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Joshua,Burch | Climate Action Council, I think that adopting all of this clean energy policy in such a short period of time is a mistake. I also think that it is bad timing, with the rise of inflation and the cost of everything due to bad policies by our current gov't. Leadership. People are not going to have the money and resources to make necessary changes that all of this green energy policy will require. It seems that you are in a hurry to push this agenda forward before you will have infrastructure to support it. I would rather see our country tap into the natural resources that we already have to be energy independent now, since we are all set up for it, and slowly transition to electric vehicles and clean energy over time. I will be praying for wisdom for you as you make these decisions. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, The Draft Scoping Plan should make strong provisions for shifts in energy costs for space cooling, protecting both landlords and tenants. Building owners are typically required to pay for heating and hot water for their tenants, while tenants pay for their own electricity bills. With heat pumps, which provide both heating and cooling, it becomes more complicated to split up the metering, meaning building owners in many cases would also need to pay for cooling for their tenants, reducing their incentive to engage in heat pump projects. In order for building owners to sub-meter space cooling to their tenants, they would need to pay an additional subscription fee to a third party to act as the utility for sub-metering. This additional cost does not make sense for buildings with a smaller number of units. Making it easier for building owners to sub-meter space cooling to their tenants or providing additional incentives for building owners to start paying for energy costs during the cooling season would make them more likely to undertake a heat pump retrofit. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: The Draft Scoping Plan does not go far enough to protect disadvantaged New Yorkers, particularly renters, during the transition to electrification of buildings. The Plan does acknowledge that low and moderate building owners and New Yorkers living in Disadvantaged Communities may need particular resources that give them access to electrifying their homes and small businesses. Integrating energy requirements and resources into affordable housing deals might expand access to low-cost yet efficient electrified housing. Unspecified regulatory and other strategies coupled with targeted investments could be used to advance equitable outcomes for low and moderate income households and for Disadvantaged Communities. These recommendations are promising but inadequate. The Plan needs to go further in recognizing that low and moderate income New Yorkers are particularly vulnerable to spikes in energy prices that may occur during this transition. Improvements via building electrification may lead landlords to raise rents, displacing vulnerable renters. Predatory business practices by contractors may be exacerbated by the opportunities electrification presents. More robust and specific protections for low and moderate income New Yorkers and for Disadvantaged Communities need to be included in the Draft Scoping Plan’s recommendations. These should include a utility bill of rights for every household; a safety net of guarantees of affordable renewable energy for every consumer; and clawback provisions for public subsidies should a landlord use such improvements to raise rents. Enforcement of NYS’ current Energy Affordability Policy (energy costs should be no more than 6% of a household’s income) should be adequately funded. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the Climate Action Council, The Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure that utility rates reinforce electrification, or provide a mechanism for alternative compensatory funding. For many single-family homes, a heat pump retrofit in addition to an air-sealing or insulation upgrade will cost more than $21,000. This, combined with the fact that there are--at the moment-- little to no financial savings on utility costs from switching from natural gas to electric heating, means that much of the time heat pump projects are difficult for many building owners to afford long-term. Additionally, for residential (1-4 unit) buildings, the incentive amounts were decreased by Con Edison for installations occurring on or after March 1, 2022. It has consequently become more costly for building owners to install heat pumps and decommission their current fossil fuel equipment.It is imperative to increase incentives for heat pump projects also given the recent increase in electric utility costs. Over the long term electricity rates should drop significantly as the grid relies more and more on solar, wind, and energy storage. But, as the Plan makes clear, we need to be electrifying buildings aggressively now. The transition period when we are (hopefully) electrifying many buildings but do not yet have a 100% renewable electricity generation in place is likely to be very expensive unless utility rates and public financing ease the transition. Yours, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council: While the Draft Scoping Plan recognizes that the expense of electrifying buildings will be more than offset in the aggregate by the benefits in terms of job creation and health cost savings, it falls short in specifying the sources of funds. It needs to do so. The Plan appropriately calls for the electrification of one to two million homes (or 125,000 to 250,000 homes per year) by 2030, with 85% of all residential and commercial buildings relying on heat pumps by 2050. While this is expected to generate 100,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030, the costs will be in the billions of dollars. The Plan recommends scaling up direct cash incentives for electrifying buildings, and piloting and scaling up financial support for community-scale solutions serving hundreds of homes and businesses that contract for energy upgrades. But the Plan does not specify where the money for these programs will come from. The Plan suggests exploring a geothermal tax credit similar to the state’s Solar Energy System Equipment Credit, which would help somewhat. It does mention the possibility of aligning price signals for energy with the CLCPA’s goals by pricing GHG emissions from fossil fuels, which could potentially be a source of significant investment in building electrification. But the suggestions for funding mechanisms need to be more robust here. Building electrification is so central to progress on New York State’s climate goals that it must have a sufficient dedicated source of funding. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, I have recently been reading with great interest Eric Dean Wilson, "After Cooling: On Freon, Global Warming, and the Terrible Cost of Comfort." Before I read this book I had assumed that the Montreal Protocol had taken care of the problem of hydro fluorocarbons. I was really pleased and impressed with your attention to this ongoing problem, which is a significant cause of global warming. The Draft Scoping Plan fully recognizes the need to transition from HFCs. HFCs are used in many refrigerants, including those used in heat pumps, as well as in foam insulation. While the Montreal Protocol of 1987 phased out the use of ozone-depleting older HFCs, the HFCs still in use have Global Warming Potentials significantly higher than CO2, sometimes thousands of times more. The Plan has a range of good recommendations about this problem, including updating regulations and codes, training for contractors, and supporting demonstration projects for low and ultra-low GWP refrigerants. Phasing out HFCs will not only mitigate global warming, but also negative environmental ramifications and health impacts. Thank you for your recommendations in this area. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the Draft Scoping Plan: I commend your attention to the need to electrify buildings and urge you to retain the strong recommendations in this chapter, recommendations like the following: The Scoping Plan recognizes the need to adopt zero emissions codes for buildings. Along with prohibiting the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at their end of life for existing buildings, recommending that other energy efficiency measures be coupled with heat pumps will ensure that buildings can become not only electrified, but also energy efficient. Coupling heat pump projects with envelope upgrades such as adding insulation into buildings and replacing, sealing, or upgrading windows and doors to reduce infiltration will reduce the size of heat pump equipment needed to heat a space, ultimately saving the building owner or tenant on energy costs over time. Additionally, adopting resiliency measures into the energy code that will support grid reliability will allow for a large number of buildings in the future to transition away from fossil fuels without disrupting the current grid infrastructure. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends changes to building codes that would mandate the shift to electrified buildings. The Plan recommends regulations that prohibit the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at the end of useful life, and require the installation of energy-efficient, zero-emission equipment for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and appliances. The Plan recommends the adoption of regulations that would require existing buildings to improve their energy efficiency. All state energy codes must be aligned with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Plan specifies near-term dates for many of these changes, which is a recognition of the urgency of these recommendations. Best, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Mr.and Mrs. Frank,Levandoski | autoalert | This plan is beyond reality without future planning as to the harm and destruction for famlies and individuals. To force this upon us will cause hardships beyond responsible care and a time we could face irreparable consequences. We dare say the majority of citizens will suffer for a few that are dictating our lives and bleak future. I am still waiting for the "Ice age" that we were told by others that was imminent in told to us a short time ago. Short and logical steps should be taken until we find alternate energy to make living a possibility. | |
| John,Cockerill | Exquisite Heat | ||
| Michael,Raab | I think this energy climate plan is not a good idea. The plan to ban Natural Gas from new homes is not a good idea. to ban sales of natural gas appliances for heating cooking etc. The ban of gasoline powered automobiles. the plan to change things is a not good plan but it took a long time to get were we are at . This will take years to get done . More then 2 years or even 13 years . we have a lot of sources in the United States to get are resouces from. this will cause a lot of hardships for people on fixed incomes. I believe the current people running are country are not thinking of the hardship on us. I feel this should not be passed. Thank you Mike Raab | ||
| Virginia,Hughes | I am not an expert on climate issues. However, we cannot continue on as we are. If the smallest change brings down the greenhouse gas production. It’s necessary. The cost may be higher, but THAT has been the concern through our history! Large corporations and energy producing groups may have to reduce their profits! Unheard of, I know. But if there is to be an existing world in the future for our children and grandchildren, we may have to sacrifice one trip to Disney World! The Corporations must also think less of their profits. | ||
| Mindy,Ostrander | The idea of getting rid of all gas appliances, natural gas lines, gas automobiles, gas lawn mowers, etc. is completely asinine for suburban/rural areas. How are we supposed to mow acres and acres of land with a battery powered mower? The price of gas has skyrocketed but yet the government feels it will force us buy battery powered cars - not going to happen. There is no money to buy a $50,000 car. We use a gas stove, gas dryer right now and they work out just fine. Do not make taxpayers pay more money for dumb reasons! | ||
| Francis,Herbstritt | Resident of NY | Your future plans to ban natural gas etc is one more reason New Yorkers and business are fleeing the state. Turn out the lights on your way. | |
| Job,Lowry | This plan is a blatant attempt at farther power grabs by the ineffective bureaucracy that NYS has become. As a land owner and proud American I'm embarrassed at the absurdity presented in this plan. The attach on natural gas is not only an overreach, it will do nothing but harm your attempt to curb use of fossil fuels. Natural gas has cut the US emissions down significantly over the last 6 years and it seems like for the ruling class it's electric or nothing. Our grid cannot handle what we require now and this plan will only strain it further. Not only that but windmill and solar panels are not even close to being ready to provide the power that we require to live and operate. This plan also seems to further regulate what citizens can do on their land which is already heavily regulated and taxed. All this is doing is pushing a clear progressive agenda with "climate justice" (a synonym for redistribution) and making things more expensive and less effective. Please, stop this charade of power massing with the label of protecting us. We don't need your protection, we need you the get out of the way. Let us live free. | ||
| Louise,Molyneux | Now is not the time. We cannot end use of fossil fuels until we have a viable alternative. Going without fossil fuels will destroy our way of life and our means of earning a living. Wind turbines and solar panels are not environmentally friendly nor are they sufficient to meet our energy needs. The solar farm near us is not even on-line yet. This past winter they were frequently covered with snow. The panels must be replaced in 20 years and they were five years old when they were installed. They will soon go into a landfill. The solar farm is on what was active farm land. Wind turbines need constant maintenance and still wear out and the huge blades then go into a landfill. I never hear about hydro power. Are you looking at that? Fossil fuels are consumed releasing carbon dioxide and water. Nothing to go into a landfill. Carbon Dioxide happens to be essential for plant life - never forget that. | ||
| Dean,Frentz | Making laws to band nateral gas and natural gas products at this time is crazy. People can’t aford to dump their cars and applances and buy new ones. Get the applances and phase them in The world does not work on man made time tables. Look at the problems that Bibin’s energy plan is causing. And God states man plan and God laughs | ||
| Joseph,Colf | All subjects listed above. Lack of common sense by our leaders will destroy many households. I.E., wind turbines blades cut up in piles by Rt. 86 in Bath,NY?? The more installations the public is more aware of the short life of turbines and energy requirements to build components. The life of batteries in cars isn’t discussed as the disposal is expensive & costly. Overall dictating rules without common sense & public opinion is typically a NY theme. To many yes people involved with out all the facts. How about both sides of the subject?? Our press is strictly one sided thus public who listens to news has to research items and form their own opinions. Much damage to clean up??? Truth, Honor & accountability isn’t a normal subject. | ||
| Linda,Erickson | You've got to leave life alone. There's way too much control, especially with all these past 2 years turmoil. REJECT ALL. | ||
| Russell,Hatch | Hi Folks, As a graduate of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry I am interested in this rather formative endeavor undertaken by presumably well-meaning NYS taxpayers. However, I also realize that this effort is, no doubt, 100% populated by un-elected beaurocrats who have a minimal regard for the wishes and preferences of the NYS residents they intend to impact. All 24 chapters of the draft document are based on a "world view" that I believe collides "head-on" with reality. As with the current "control mentality" regarding the CCP / Fauci viruses, it is obvious that the CLIMATE has hired folks embracing this divergent world view to represent itself in some universal court. The effort to achieve the goals outlined in this draft document must certainly entail drastic state/world population reduction and mind control. (Yes, the pre-schoolers and primary grade children MUST wear masks to handicap their ability to learn.) Therefore, the goal is really not primarily "cleaning up the environment", but rather Marxist-style government. The freedoms enjoyed by the peasantry will be freedoms that government say exist. Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution declare a different standard: these documents stipulate limits on what the government is allowed to do. You endeavor to do a very misguided thing; I trust you will FAIL. Thanks. | ||
| Tiffiny,Cahoon | Please outline the ways that you are protecting economically disadvantaged rural, farming communities. In my personal experience, we have been targets of companies that would like to pollute our land and water with human feces and take land that could be turned into forests or productive farm land and install solar panels. Not only are they taking this land, the benefits are never seen by our local community. Please help me understand how a solar forest is a replacement for a real forest. Thank you. | ||
| Frank,Houtz | In passing these laws banning the sale of natural gas appliances will only force people to go out of the state to get the causing a loss of sale tax revenue for the state and local governments Next by banning the sale of natural gas you will cause the loss of many jobs in the state again making more people move from the state to get a job in there profession loosing income tax revenue Also natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy we have With electric the windmills that go up everywhere don’t produce the amount of power that hydro electric does and the windmill blades need to be replaced every 5 years with no way to recycle them adding to more waste in our land fills Next banning the sale of gasoline powered recreational vehicles again causing people to go out of the state to purchase these loosing tax revenue for the state and local government I wish our elected officials would look at what is best for the whole state and not what is best for there personal agendas | ||
| Victor,Anderson | I reject this plan overall. It is an over reach of Government authority and will only cause hardship to many. This is something that should only be allowed to happen in a free market economy. Allow the people to choose what they want to do. If people want electric cars for example they will buy them without being forced to do so. | ||
| James,schaff | N/A | NO TO ANY TAX INCREASES ON ANYTHING pertaining to this! | |
| Sue,Fitz | As a whole I think you are way off. | ||
| Katie,Brown | REJECT it all! We need natural gas still, as our infrastructure cannot handle all electric. What happens where there is a power outage in WNY in the middle of winter? We all freeze to death? REJECT!!! What happens when the power goes out and we cannot drive our kids to school/work? Just call in? Will you be paying us then, no. REJECT! | ||
| Tina,Richir | I support the use of wind and electric energy so we can limit the use of fossil fuels. I do worry about automobiles and the need for infrastructure to use them, especially in rural areas like where I live by the expected date. Key elements of the proposals include: By January 1, 2024 – LESS THAN 2 YEARS from now – BAN ANY NEW NATURAL GAS SERVICE to existing homes and buildings as well as newly constructed homes and buildings-Great idea! By 2030, ban the sale of natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying- Yes! By 2035, ban the sale of gasoline-powered automobiles- as long as we have the infrastructure to do it. | ||
| Diane,Dengos | I cannot understand how people do not see the benefit of natural gas it is clean burning as well as an inexpensive. Also the US has an abundance of it. The electrical grid in New York City goes out with their constant and continuous brownouts , since the power grid is old and vulnerable to weather and attacks. Utilizing both allows a redundancy of fuel sources to power NYC and the rest of the state This allows businesses the ability to always stay in business . Apparently Gov Hochul forgot where her budget receives funding, so let me remind her ..the NYS taxpayers. Let’s address what are affecting people now .. how are taxpayers supposed to stay warm and be able to function performing activities of daily living? That would be eating, bathing, grooming on a individual level. This require light, heat and energy! This a public health issue issue which can NOT be ignored. How about referendums asking each county what THEY want and not pushing a political agenda by green lobbyists? Let the people vote on what impacts them and stop dictating to them. | ||
| charles,white | I know that most of you politicians do not care about us individuals trying to get by , your only interest is in big business and getting re-elected to a cushy job but these gas prices are killing us and what you are proposing is only going to make it worse you should be doing something now about all the oil we by from other countries instead of using our own oil its just crazy please do something now not 10 years | ||
| jay,woodruff | woodruff | leave our nat gas alone | |
| Terri,Batt | Batt Farm | As a farmer's wife, I respectfully ask the WHY NYS is even considering banning natural gas as an option for heating homes and for appliances? I respectfully ask why on the eventual banning of gasoline/diesel powered vehicles? I look down the road and see farms shutting down due to the inability to farm vegetables and fruit, transporting food to cities, etc. You're killing our state. Period. If you can find a mode of transportation (airplane/jet) that will run on electric, then maybe I MIGHT consider the ban of natural gas or gasoline/diesel. NYS is important to the country's economy. Stop the stranglehold. Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy. Electric cars take more 'energy' to create, and when the battery is finished (3-5 years) it will go into a landfill and continue to leak acids into the soil for the next 10-20 years. Please stop killing our state. Encourage growth. We really don't want to sell the family farm and move to another state. I LOVE NEW YORK, just not the politics and taxes. | |
| Charles,LaDuca | Someone needs to pump the brakes here. We are now in the clutches of record inflation which will only get worse. Fossil fuels are used to create all these "go green" ideas. I understand the amount of minerals needed to create solar panels, batteries and wind turbines. Blindly following the climate change croud is not in the best interest of our country. Seems like the administration is constantly putting the cart before the horse. The country cannot survive without fossil fuels. Going from energy independence to where we are now begging our sworn enemies for oil is insane. We can gradually transition, but he foundation must be in place to do so. The current version of electric cars is not the short term answer, which is where we are being pushed. Once again the middle class is being crushed. Politicians are out of touch and have long ago stopped working for us the people. Nothing I say will change that, but I feel better putting it in writing. | ||
| Dale,Carlson | Our NYS leaders who are pushing an unrealistic time frame for so called green energy are either ignorant of the economic facts or (more dangerously) just not concerned about the financial impact on the average new yorker. | ||
| Lori,Bartlett | This is a bad idea.Homes have reduced in valuie because people can't afford to fix their homes and we want to add another burden to the tax payer. How about let the tax payers make a decision in what's best for us instead of forcing more of a stugle. We need keep the clean energy we have. | ||
| Jack,Dalton | Please reject this proposal, it is ill conceived and will destroy the agricultural heritage that made this state a leader. A battery operated tractor or bulldozer, or many other construction equipment is cost prohibitive and cannot be run 24 hours a day for days or weeks on end without recharging. This is sheer lunacy, again we have people making decisions about things they have no idea of how things are done. Some senior citizens that heat with fuel other than electricity are already foregoing life saving medications so they can buy enough food. Where will they get the money to convert their homes to an alternative fuel? Solar power and windmills are fine for supplemental power sources, but cannot supply the amount of electricity needed if we switch over to all electric. Power generation would be needed in remote locations to harvest lumber, build or maintain roads and power boats and ships. Where will the tar come from that is used in asphalt for road construction? Do you realize that tar comes form the fractional distillation process which is used to refine fossil fuels? Let us see how you make tar from windmills or sola arrays. | ||
| Lori,Johnson | As an exhausted overtaxed New york resident, I strongly disagree with All aspects of the Climate Action Plan. I REJECT these plans which will hike energy costs and take away all sources of energy that is currently used. The answer from me is a huge No!!!! | ||
| THOMAS,BROWN | Are you trying to drive everyone out of New York? Our current power grid can’t even handle air conditioning during the summer and you want to switch everything to electric. Ev vehicles are much more worse for the environment. Do some research. Look at lithium mines. And wind turbines that are obsolete and can’t be recycled and piling up across the country. WAKE UP! | ||
| Thom,Bemus | There are NO economic benefits to this plan accept to the very wealthy. This plan will cause utter chaos to transportation in the rural areas of the state and again, benefits only the very wealthy. The cost of building and operating an average home in NY will be radically increased due the requirements for uneconomical subsystems for heating only the very wealthy can afford. The plan has no realistic plan for replacing either natural gas or gasoline as primary energy sources. Windmills and solar panel, though useful, simply cannot fully replace fossil fuels in the immediate future. Unless there are several large nuclear generating stations nearing construction completion I don't know, about NY doesn't have nearly the electricity required by the unrealistic timeline of this plan. Everyone knows that every time the thermometer nears 90 the state's grid is in danger of collapse. There is really no need to comment further on this recipe for disaster. This is an Ill-conceived plan that benefits only the wealthy and will take NY down the same disastrous road that is leading California to self destruction. Pursue this plan and the depopulation of NY will only accelerate until the state no longer has the congressional clout to get federal bailouts to save it from this self-inflicted folly. | ||
| Scott,dunlap | Tax Payer | To whome it may concern. Im writhing you concerning the new climate rules. My wife and family have been bugging me to move from our beautiful home in chautauqua co to anywhere but here (florida) but I keep telling them how lucky we are to own our home but when i read rediculas rules such as the new rules pertaining to climate control its hard to argue with them so please help me keep my family in New york by being realistic and not adopting fairytale rules SINCERLY SCOTT DUNLAP | |
| John,Tinelli | First, let me start with the inaccurate assumption that we in NY are the problem. The US has the lowest carbon footprint of any nation on the planet. WE and WE alone are not responsible for 100% of the carbon being produced in the world. China, produces 100 times what we do. Why don't you ban Chinese business in NY instead? By doing so, you can remove a massive portion of carbon in the world. This plan is so flawed my teenagers understood it at the dinner table. They asked me, why do they only look at SOME of the data? Good question. Second, banning natural gas? Are you looking for a civil war? Are you trying to see how far you can push people before they revolt? Look, make this change in NYC alone. Use them as a test bed. See how it works. Then see if you can apply it to the rest of the State. Third, my business uses lots of electric. We try to be green. We try to keep our carbon footprint low. Not because of any laws. But because we just want to be friendly to our planet. DO NOT politicize this. You will loose. Here is the problem, you keep pushing this green initiative. The power company officials tell me when I ask for more power, THEY DONT HAVE IT. Yes, thats right. THEY DONT HAVE IT. So before you cut your own head off with a ridiculous bill like this, you need to make sure the power grid is capable of it. The power companies such as national grid, Rochester gas and electric, and nyseg ALL say the same thing. They dont have enough power and THEY say solar and wind are proving on paper and in reality, they cant produce the power. Only nuclear can. I urge you not to create a civil war. Its not worth the lives you are trying to destroy to get your way. And you WILL cause mayhem with such a law. | ||
| Tina,Adams | We. Cannot afford personally or for business to eliminate any form of energy. We should expand types but not outlaw any | ||
| Mary,Lingenfelter | To whom it may concern: In reading over the information provided regarding the new climate action plan proposed by the New York State legislators, I am shocked, dismayed, and very disgusted with the plan. It moves too fast! We the citizens are not ready for such a plan. The construction business is not ready for such a plan. Many industries are not ready for such a plan. Yet, you’ve dictated these changes and they are for many individuals impossible. You are expecting too much too fast. One of the comments stated that there is nowhere else in the world that’s such a plan is being suggested. Our economy is already hurting post-pandemic. Industries are struggling. Now you want to further jeopardize jobs and families so that you can say we have a one of a kind plan? You need to backpedal a bit, take your time, and do it correctly! New York State is already near the top of the list for citizens who are leaving the state. This would just just be one more reason for industry and families to leave. Sincerely yours, Mary Lingenfelter | ||
| Seanean,Courtwright | It is absolutely ridiculous to ban natural gas and appliances! You need to get in touch with reality, the working people’s reality! Stop hurting us! Focus your attention on useful ideas! It’s infuriating to see lawmakers pass these nonsensical laws. I left the democrat party because they do not care about the average American or New Yorker. | ||
| Ron,Matter | This crazy thought of accomplishing this full electric agenda in the next 10 to 13 years is just crazy! You will bankrupt all rural families and businesses. It is a pipe dream. Our infrastructure is not capable of handling this pipe dream. We cannot even keep our electricity on now. Wind storms snow storm and hard rains continuely take out our power sometime for hours even days. Stop this pipe dream immediately or bankrupt all the working people. | ||
| Eric,Cline | I feel this whole plan is nonsense. Whoever took the time to draft this has never been a part of the real world. This will cripple new yorkers even further, driving what businesses we have left completely out of ny. Please please use some common sense when trying to dictate | ||
| Robert E,Wode | To pass this bill as it is written is wrong on so many levels. Natural gas is a clean energy. Much less expensive than electric. It is in the best interest of all New Yorkers to continue to create clean energy. Which includes both gas electric and solar power. | ||
| April,Burke | Please, life is crazy enough as it is. We can't afford this. My family and I REJECT these plans to hike energy costs.. | ||
| Samuel,Genco | I will join with anyone else who will fight these ridiculous so-called climate change programs. To make all our cars, appliances, and other devices electric will invite disaster if our grid goes down, which anyone knows is very possible for a variety of reasons. We are being forced to swallow changes imposed on us, instead of being served by the people we elect or are otherwise appointed. Stop imposing regulations on us. You do not have answers, just very flawed agendas. | ||
| Joel,Whitcher | Electricity is far more harmful to the human body that carbon. Try carrying your cell phone in your front pant pocket and notice how it makes you feel. The electric battery in a car causes your bodies electoral system to be messed up. You also probably understand what 5 g can do to the human body. If your ok with people dying keep pursuing your death-wish of a bill. I do not understand how so many politicians really do not value human life. My neighbor has a 125000 dollar electric Porsche that she cannot use in the winter because it cannot keep a charge long enough to drive it when it is cold. The technology that you are relying on sucks in cold weather states. Friends and family who have solar panels cannot generate enough energy to make a difference. Also, are you going to be using natural gas to produce electricity, which no sense to me that you can use it, but the lowly people can’t. Be careful what you wish for, you may have a state of empty, foreclosed homes, and caskets. | ||
| Ronald,Meyer | Have our leaders in New York an Washington completely lost touch with rural Americans | ||
| Dennis,Spoon | I do not understand how you people think! I guess you want more people to move out of this state! You cannot stop the production or use of any fossil fuel! You will destroy the state and the lives of the working class. I get it you don’t care about us or our thoughts as long as you get the votes from the people that do nothing or the people that live in the big cities that it does not effect. When you start to see all the power outages and brown outs that will happen you will then try to figure out what lie to tell and who to blame this new catastrophe on. I for one realize that it is time to move. Sad day lived in NY forever. | ||
| Andrew ,Wheelock | We cannot afford to walk away from natural gas and petroleum. Certainly we should develop all types of energy but not at the expense of current affordable and plentiful gas and oil. You’re ruining the state and people are leaving. | ||
| Brad,Seibert | Stop. Just stop with your tyrannical government overreach! The lack of freedom, ability to make your own decisions, and the ridiculous taxation in the State of NY is driving people away. I own multiple properties in this state and I'm on the verge of selling everything and leaving too. Now you want to remove the most economical way people have to heat their homes, cook their food and provide heat for their hot water? STOP! | ||
| Lois A.,Zendarski | Banning of natural gas is a disastrous decision for New York residents, especially those in rural areas. Charging EV products is next to impossible takes too long and woukd put further hardships on us all. This proposal is out of touch with reality. | ||
| tom,taft | Have you people lost your minds. Do you want to destroy our country; Resign don't do this to your country. you all know what this will do you see it now you implement your liberal agenda. I hope your proud of yourselves. | ||
| Rebecca,Brockway | REJECT these plans to hike energy cost. New York Taxes are Out of Control. Now you want to take away affordable Reliable Energy this is So ineffective on a Global Scale. Use some Common sense. Thank you | ||
| Elizabeth,Kaffitz | Kaffitz Farms | I cannot speak for how feasible this plan is for those who live in cities, but I can speak for those of us who live 10 miles from the grocery, 35 miles from the nearest place to purchase clothing, and 100 miles from a teaching hospital with a trauma center. When solar is available in an inexpensive paint that can be applied to a metal roof or any south-facing wall of your home, is wired into the grid free of charge, and still works under 2 or more feet of snow, it will be a viable alternative for rural homes. When electric cars can carry me 100 miles to my doctor's office and back without needing to be recharged, I will buy one--assuming it costs no more than a gasoline-powered vehicle. When he can purchase a 30-year-old electric-powered tractor at a farm auction, I am sure my husband will do so. (That's how old his "newest" tractor is.) Yes, we have to make changes. But they have to be reasonable ones. Mandating change will only foster a huge black market in fossil fuel. Prohibition didn't work. Neither would these changes. Many of our neighbors are barely hanging on. They live from one Social Security check to another. They have to heat with oil or propane, because they are no longer able to cut firewood or feed a wood stove. They would not be able to pay for whole new systems to power and heat their homes or higher-priced vehicles to get to town. Mandating these changes would mean mandating these seniors live in unheated homes, read by candlelight, and probably starve to death. No senior can be expected to walk 10 miles to the grocery store and 10 miles back carrying heavy bags of canned goods. (No electricity means no refrigerator or freezer, so all food will be coming from cans.) As you can see, these mandates are completely impossible for rural families. You remember them, they're the people who grow your food--everything from milk, to meat, to vegetables. Without them, where would everyone else be? | |
| Susan,Quattrone | I realize we need to be environmentally conscious however, and I think we are in many ways in New York State. More so than many other states in this country. But cutting good paying jobs by eliminating the keystone pipeline was not the way to go about it. We are struggling middle income Americans and you government officials that have higher incomes show us how much you do not care about us. I wish the people in office would work for us middle income Americans and not the elites of this state . We are in so much trouble with all of Your policies and terrible ideas that have been implemented since the change of presidents! | ||
| Paul,Bentley | To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my opposition to the plan to ban new natural gas service in homes and businesses in New York State starting in 2024, and to ban the sale of natural gas appliances beginning in 2030. Natural gas has been a safe and reliable source of energy for heating, cooking, and other home appliance uses for over 100 years. Developments in appliance technology continue to make the use of natural gas cleaner and safer. An example is the use of electronic ignition to replace pilot lights. If the idea behind this plan is for New York to become more “green” I have to ask how this enormous increase in electrical demand will be met. The majority of electrical power in the United States is still generated by burning fossil fuels, a process that is continually being made cleaner and safer by advances in technology. If New York State residents can no longer use natural gas in their homes they will still be dependent on the burning of gas and coal somewhere to generate the expensive electrical power that this plan will force on them. The idea that solar and wind power can completely replace the use of fossil fuels is unrealistic. Those technologies are a wonderful idea as a supplement to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but are not now and may never be consistent or reliable enough to replace the well-developed power network that we now have. The solar and wind proponents rarely mention the reliance of those technologies on rare earth elements that come mainly from China and other unfriendly countries. We should be strengthening our power networks by using what we can produce here at home, not increasing our dependence on those who could become our enemies. Our leaders in Albany should be focusing on what is best and realistic for the residents of New York instead of pursuing foolish ideologies so they can score “green” points with the political left wing. Please consider these points and cancel this disastrous plan. | ||
| Tammy,Day | Though I am pleased to see that this issue is being looked at, this solution didn't seem to take into account those New Yorker's who live in the county and are farmers or who travel long distances. I don't see how New Yorker's will be able to not only make these adjustments but afford them. The timing is a bit fast and not sure that technology will be ready for these changes. Any changes that are made, you must take into account all New Yorker's, not just those who live in the city and use public transportation. Or, those people who are too far way for village services and must rely on natural gas. Not to mention the cost of make those changes needed to meet these requirements. Maybe take it a bit slower and offer more incentives for people that to switch over or purchase electric cars. Personally, I am no interest in an electric car until it can travel 400 miles without a charge and be able to charge in 10 minutes or less. Please take a step back and think about all the ramifications this will have, not just the immediate and political high-five you may get. | ||
| Mark,DuBois | I think we need to find other ways to encourage the climate to be more amenable to humans than strategies that make heating homes unaffordable to many people. As well, we need to consider the pollution that comes from electric cars in terms of rare earth minerals. Let us not pretend that eliminating gasoline powered cars will be a panacea. Let us also consider strategies such as altering agricultural practices such that the soil is changed to hold more water the way Allan Savory has discussed. I think that there are strategies such as his, that will be much gentler on the human population than the harsh measures proposed in this legislation. Please consider thinking outside the box which seems only allow thinking on the lines of how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere. There are other factors that can be considered as well. | ||
| Jeffery,Mason | I vehemently oppose the banning of natural gas, natural gas appliances, and gas powered vehicles. This will utterly destroy the low and middle class of NY not only in thier homes, but think about the jobs that will be lost. The power grid will not be able to handle every New Yorker on it, not to mention the amount of ever growing computer tech taking a toll on the power grid. You already have blackouts and grey outs when too many people run air conditioners. I pledge to not vote for and campaign against any politicians in favor of this bill. | ||
| James,Szymanski | Please do not get rid of the only energy we can afford - natural gas. You do not have anything to replace it yet. Why do you want to get rid of natural gas? It is the cleanest energy we have. Why do you want to get rid of carbon. All the green plants and trees need carbon to live. Plant more trees to soak up any extra carbon. They will give us more clean oxygen to breathe as well. Be wise. Think ahead. How will you replace natural gas? There is nothing that can provide that much power on a steady basis yet. Be prepared before you make rules you can't keep. NY is already losing lots of people due to high taxes and poor business laws. This will push more people out, even those who never considered it. | ||
| Karen,Szymanski | We are very low income and just barely able to pay our bills now. If you get rid of cheap natural gas we will not be able to heat our home and water. We can barely pay for gas now with the massive increase in gasoline in the past month. Please do not get rid of natural gas. It is one of the cleanest and cheapest energies we have !!!! If you switch to electric cars there will be lots of acid and battery materials that will need to be disposed of. It is not as clean as you think! You need to get the electricity from somewhere and solar and wind are not up to speed yet. They cannot power factories and hospitals or cars. Do not get rid of the good energy we have now until you have dependable replacements. It could be many years before that happens. Don't throw out what works if you don't have good replacements. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, I urge the Climate Action Council to exhibit even more skepticism about untried solutions than it does. Hydrogen and Renewable Natural Gas are likely to have very narrow applicability to electricity generation. The cost of building production and transmission systems to supply power plants would be enormous, and this is money better spent on building large-scale renewables. Note that hydrogen cannot be transported through the current network of pipelines in much of New York City and other cities in the state as it is too corrosive. In NYC specifically half of our under street gas distribution pipelines are more than 50 years old. None of them are coated with an internal layer that would protect from corrosion. Biomass and Bioenergy both release carbon dioxide, the very greenhouse gas the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is designed to eliminate. Waste-to-Energy threatens local areas with co-pollutants, worsening air quality and local health. In sum, the Draft Scoping Plan should concentrate on wind, solar, battery storage, and efficiency as solutions to New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. Thank you. Sara Gronim | ||
| Jon,Payne | This Green Energy initiative will have long term negative effects on all New Yorkers. Increased costs to convert to electric cars and appliances will put undue pressures on many individuals. Pressures on the grid to adapt to all electric cars will cause issues as well. You will also put many individuals out of a job with reductions of oil and gas. Issues with the batteries used in electric cars will become evident soon, not to mention the cost to purchase these vehicles and keep them operational. Additionally what the plan for the extreme high volume of air traffic using fuel? An$ how are you going to get the rest of the world to change to theses policies? Jon Payne Kennedy | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: The Draft Scoping Plan offers some good ideas for building community acceptance of clean energy siting, but could be expanded. The advantages that the transition to renewable energy economy offers to the economy, particularly in the dramatic growth in good jobs should get more emphasis. The advantages the transition would offer in terms of human health is another huge benefit that many people don't recognize. May I also recommend that the Plan add attention to educating the press, especially local outlets throughout the state? These are a significant source of information and I think many journalists feel ill equipped to cover climate issues, as these can be quite technical. Best, Sara Gronim | ||
| Kathleen,Lenhart | I am not in support of the Climate Action Plan for NY. Although our current situation with energy usage leaves much to be desired, I believe the Climate Action Plan will make things worse. I am a senior citizen on low income living in a rural area. My fixed income is very modest. The cost of electricity is very high now, and if this is to become my primary heating source, will put the cost of heating my small trailer out of my range. I am sure that there are many others in a similar situation. When a new plan of energy usage is being considered, does this committee consider the financial ability of the customers and the failing economy with prices getting higher every month? For changes in energy supply to work, shouldn't the practicality of the impact of these changes be taken into consideration? Electricity always was the highest priced heating source and my rural area is prone to power outages. Surely there could be other solutions, such as developing solar technology to heat our homes and power our cars. I am asking you to consider the current state of stress on financial resources for individual consumers and come up with a better plan, one that works for all New Yorkers. Thank you. | ||
| Jerry,Scott | this will kill NYS.Let's go with a Federal standard so we are on equal footing with everyone else. | ||
| Timothy ,Gustafson | Private NY citizen | What are you thinking. Why would you punish the private property owner who use such a small percentage of the natural gas compared to the large company’s do you realize how much more electric heat and cooking and clothes drying is compared to using natural gas, or is it you just don’t care. Who are we anyways. How are you going to produce enough electric solar panels get snow and cloudy days, we just won’t cook or bath on cloudy and snowy days. This is NY we have a lot of cloudy days and a lot of snow. Oh we could use Nuclear but for some reason you stopped that. It is just as safe as anything else. | |
| JOSEPH,BASINAIT | Respectfully I ask that you reject the New York State Energy Councils' radical and unrealistic plan to force unaffordable mandates on New Yorkers. Any plan such as this should be carefully thought out and be done on the federal level. I personally will not stand for these mandates. Although I am a lifetime resident of New York State I will immediately pack my bags and move out if these damaging mandates are passed into New York State Law. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Members of the Climate Action Plan. The Draft Scoping Plan should develop strategies for putting solar on the roofs of large, flat-roofed buildings like big box stores, schools, and warehouses.. The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding buildings with large flat roofs to this recommendation. In Brooklyn where I live there are few, if any, open lots suitable for large-scale solar arrays, and there aren't a lot of open air parking lots, either. There are, however, acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses here. What engineering adaptations could be made so they can add solar without threatening the integrity of their roofs? Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council, Solar arrays on small buildings like houses will be a critical part of the energy supply as we reach 70% renewable electricity by 2030. The Draft Scoping Plan should recommend that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Allan,Bouquin | Do not ban or restrict fossil fuels. Instead embrace all sources of energy to make New York energy independent. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that the burdens placed on Disadvantaged Communities by existing fossil fuel plants are central to all planning. The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities “should be considered.” (p. 156) The language should be stronger. Communities that are disadvantaged often have multiple sources of significant pollution, not just their local power plant. Heightened attention to their disproportionate burdens should be mandated. Yours, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, The Draft Scoping Plan should strengthen the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants.The Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plants over time but there should be a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants. Moreover, plant owners should be responsible for site remediation when plants are closed. Right now, each owner's request to retrofit a power plant to prolong its life is dealt with one at a time. The work that goes into ensuring that the plant is appropriately retired requires countless volunteer hours. I should know--I'm one of those volunteers. I am committed to the vision of the CLCPA and want to spend my time working on building out renewables and increasing energy efficiency. A clear statement about exactly how and when NYS will phase out all fossil fuel plants, while denying permits to any new ones, would send a clear signal to plant owners that they shouldn't bother applying for retrofit permits or new plants. Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, any new permits should specify that the extension of plant use will be temporary. The conditions of the new permit should also specify that the cost of such retrofitting will be the responsibility of the owner, not ratepayers, should the plant become a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. In addition, language in the Plan should make a stronger commitment to clean energy job training in every community where a plant closes. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, I am extremely concerned about the climate crisis and acutely aware that we have very little time left to lower our greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avert a rise in global mean temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. I also know that some of the most important sources of GHG are unfamiliar to most people, who primarily think of smokestacks and tailpipes as the key sources of emissions. I commend the Climate Action Council for its attention to some of these obscure but highly dangerous sources. For example,the Draft Scoping Plan supports fully phasing out SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) and replacing it with a zero emissions alternative. While the Plan recognizes that utilities in New York State have worked to reduce the leakage of SF6, a substance used as an insulator in electrical systems, SF6 is so potent a greenhouse gas (17,000 times more potent than CO2 over a 20 year span) that eliminating it altogether has real urgency. This is an example of a recommendation that must stay in the final Scoping Plan. Please stand fast on this one! Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Mark,Hendrix | Your plan smacks of ignorance, forcing people to comply to your dreams, how do you factor in the rest of the world keeping their combustion engines, coal fired energy plants, and heaven forbid a volcano erupts. Your pompous plan screams communism, telling us what to think and what we can or cannot purchase. If global warming is such a concern why did Obama purchase a million dollar estate on the beach in Nantucket, and Al Gore and John Kerry race around the world on private jets telling the rest of us we are doomed. Your work is a waste of tax payer funds, get off the public funds and do something productive like go to China and peddle your plan there. If you are so confident in your solutions make them voluntary, let it compete in a true market economy. If this passes I will be sure to rent a gas powered moving truck as I relocated to a red state. | ||
| Ann,Barbuto | It is unconscionable that you would literally leave people of New York state without heat in two years by denying natural gas service to current homes. Many of the older homes, like ours, do not have an HVAC system that would allow us to simply switch over to electricity instead of gas. I am appalled that my home state thinks so little of its current residents as to deny them the basics of a stable living environment that relies on natural gas. Moreover, eliminating gas-powered vehicles is another short-sighted plan. We are simply not ready for all EV when we cannot even produce the components needed for them in the USA. That issue is separate from the cost of an electric vehicle and its inability to go more than a few hundred miles without needing extensive time to recharge. I could not drive to Albany from Dunkirk in an electric vehicle. Eventually, an electric vehicle may make sense, but not now, when the state cannot even produce its own electric power. And by the way, if you've spent time along the shores of Lake Erie, you also know how fragile that ecosystem is and how the lake provides fresh drinking water for over a million people. Putting windmills in the lake risks stirring up decades-old PCBs and other toxins that are buried under the silt bottom of the lake. How myopic is it to "save energy" while contaminating drinking water and the lake's ecosystem. I urge you to reconsider your timeline and listen to your citizens who are not in agreement with your aggressive timeline for carbon neutrality. These are the kinds of approaches that are driving people and industry from NY state. | ||
| Alison,Hammond | I am in favor of REJECTING these plans to hike energy costs. | ||
| Warren,Voegelin | Although progress is being made in the electric vehicle industry, I feel that even in 13 years, the viability of electric vehicles just won't be ready. Especially in rural upstate and western NY. Until the range of EV's is extended and charging times reduced EV's are only suitable for urban commuters. | ||
| William,Miller | This is the biggest "pie in the sky" scheme that I have seen in my 70 years in NYS. Where in the H**L is all the needed, non fossil fueled electricity going to come from?? Electric Utilities will pass costs to implement the goals of the legislation onto the consumer. I HAVE SPENT 2 DAYS READING THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT AND APPENDICES SO THAT I HAVE A FULL GRASP ON WHAT IS IN THIS LEGISLATION!! I agree that it is prudent to cut emissions and become energy independent but I do not see this plan as viable in its present form and scope. Seeing that this is NY, I become very wary when I see the legislation language like "this can be accomplished with a small fee on gasoline powered vehicles" - This means more tax that may, or more likely, may not be 100% earmarked for ONLY this legislation's Programs. I believe THE PEOPLE would be much more inclined to support a similar plan for the public AFTER NYS FIRST IMPLIMENTED IT FOR THE DOT, STATE POLICE, ALL .GOV VEHICLES, ALL .GOV BUILDINGS AND THE BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES OF ALL OTHER STATE AGENCIES!! IT SURE WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE POLITICIANS AND PROPONENTS CONVERT TO 100% ELECTRIC AT THE SAME TIME TOO. START THERE, PROVE IT'S VIABILITY AND LEAD BY EXAMPLE!! SHOW TO THE NYS TAXPAYERS THAT IT CAN BE DONE WITH THE PROPOSED/PROJECTED COST WITH MINIMAL HARDSHIP!! I would 100% support the above approach - don't mandate this unguided & unwieldy hardship onto the tax paying public without firstly showing that NYS and it's Politicians are truly committed. I know that you will try and pass this anyways, citing that it is "for the environment & NY Taxpayer's good", just like you always do and while doing this; more taxes will be levied to implement and pay for it (and it will be "pork" laden just like all other legislated Programs that I have experienced in NYS). | ||
| Kenneth ,Kaus | The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. | ||
| Thomas,Kirkpatrick | New York's headlong dash to green energy which is dependent on as yet unproven wind and solar projects is dangerous and will very likely leave upstate New York more uncompetitive in the business market than it already is. While I understand that the council is biased towards green energy a proper concern for the future prosperity of New York, for its citizens and for those yet to come should over ride those biases. At this time nuclear power generation should be reconsidered as the technology has matured greatly since the Three Mile Island incident nearly 43 years ago. However New York State is going out of the nuclear power business because our planning for the future of our power grid is driven by misinformed public and even official opinion. I believe that your Draft Scoping Plan is a plan for disaster and should be modified and that the Climate Leadership and that Community Protection Act, on which it is based, is bad law promoted by a now discredited governor. Finally our planning for the state's future should be based on reality and facts and not on the "pipe dreams" of those who would likely be least impacted by the plan. | ||
| Rhonda,M Willsie | This bill proposal will ultimately do more damage to our state economy than current natural gas usage does to the environment. It favors one industry exclusively for energy production and the cost to consumers is staggering. All out bans on gasoline powered vehicles and gas powered appliances will cause residents to have to purchase vehicles 3-4 times the already high priced gas/diesel vehicles. The same goes for appliances, and additional costs to retrofit their homes to all electric. This bill is very, very short sighted and it does not consider the AVERAGE resident and what they can afford. Please do not allow this bill to pass. It shouldn't even be a consideration for a vote. | ||
| Jeffrey,Hellwig | The Climate plan will destroy New York state. This will reduce the amount of new home and buildings in the state. If this passes you will drive even more people from New York. I was going to build a new house in the next year. This will scrap that plan. Time to vote out anyone who supports this garbage! It is about time the New York government does something for the people instead of always screwing the taxpayer. | ||
| Steven,Little | The idea that the plan is to eliminate natural gas for heating and for major appliances seems ridiculous. It is one of the cleanest and most affordable ways to heat. Also, it is one of the most cost efficient ways to cook, heat water, dry clothes, etc. and to remove this option seems foolhardy when it is one of the cleanest ways to generate energy for these tasks. Also, the edict regarding vehicles and eliminating gas power also seems it may be premature. Will we have sufficient alternate fuel vehicles by this time frame. The other question is will they be affordable for the average person. Also, there is a question of the materials for these vehicles. Are the materials for these vehicles and the batteries going to be available considering the main source of the materials needed is China and we know they are not our biggest fan. All of these issues raise concerns on there edicts and their viability. Thank yo for your time and consideration on these matters. | ||
| john,telfer | I strongly oppose unnecessary regulations and spending that force us to rely only on wind and solar power. Solar and wind energy solutions may be part of our future energy needs, as long as they are affordable and do not contribute to further pollution. Any installations must be designed and built by US citizens with materials made in the USA. Electric vehicles need much further study and development before being mandated for general use. They must have the range and quick refueling comparable to internal combustion vehicles. Again, they must be competitively affordable and made in the USA by Americans. | ||
| laurie,lavey | NO NO AND NO! Stop trying to cripple us! We don't want your alternate power sources.....Leave the gas powered everything ALONE! We are NOT supportive of BIDENS GREEN policy. We live in RURAL New York. We have farm equipment and drive long distances to get anywhere for anything. This is why we need to be separate from New York City . You do not speak for me. | ||
| Anthony,Pingitore | NYFOA-AFC | Shutting down Fossil Fuels so we can foster "Clean Energy" which is decades away, if ever, of being an economical, reliable to fossil fuels, is an onerous, dangerous path. In the mean time there are countless homes, businesses and factories, not to mention farmers, truckers and others who have to rely on gas and oil to exist and stay warm. This plan is unconscionable! Like it or not, global warming is here, rather than spend tons of money and resources to reverse it our effort should be how do we live with it. Shutting down fossil fuels is definitely not a solution. Who ever is behind this is misleading the country and is obviously being bought-off by those whose agenda relies on this scam! Please use common sense and discard this notion before it is too late! | |
| David,Tuttle | This is nothing short of insanity. My wife and I will be leaving New York State. | ||
| Ardelle,Rambacher | We are only going to make this worse. Gas is natural source of energy and we can be energy dependent if we choose to do so if we open up gaslines and stop thinking that solar energy is the way to go. We live in a cold area and we need gas as a source to heat our houses. | ||
| Larry,Dysinger | Yes, the climate is changing. It has always changes even before humans lived on the planet. While the burning of fossils fuels is a contributing factor to climate temperature, no one know how much of a factor it is. The eart56h has gone through many ice ages and then hot periods. The biggest factor is the sun. It is disappointing that nuclear power is not part of the equation to lower carbon emissions. NYS just shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant which provided 31% of the electricity for the lower hudson valley and NYC. While some claim that mining uranium is polluting the earth, so is mining for the minerals for to make solar panels and batteries. What is the plan and cost to recycle solar panels and batteries? That appears to be lacking in the cost analysis. Should we move towards electric vehicles, sure. This should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. EV make sense in urban areas. I have solar panels and it has been a disappointment. NYS should be pushing for the insulation of residential, commercial and industrial buildings. NYS should be educating residents on how wasteful it is to keep home temperatures in the 70's during the winter and in the 60's during the summer. | ||
| Patrica,Sage | WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE PLAN TO BAN ALL NATURAL GAS HEATING BANS AND THE REQUIRMENT TO BAN NATURAL GAS CONNECTIONS FOR ALL NEW BUILDS, BANNING NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES AND GAS POWERED VEHICLES. THIS IS A PREJUDICE BILL THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RURAL LOCATIONS IN NEW YORK STATE. START REPRESENTING THE COMPLETE STATE AND NOT JUST YOUR URBAN AREAS!!! | ||
| Robert,Terhune | These measures will kill rural New York. We rely on natural gas and propane for heat. Electric cannot power heavy equipment and vehicles required for farming etc.. Most of the "leaders" in Albany are out of touch with what life is like in a rural area, and frankly, they don't care. What are the plans for producing more electricity? The grid is stretched thin as it is, now you want to make everything electric. It won't work. Please use some common sense instead of following a flawed political agenda | ||
| Patrick,Cleveland | N/A | If we don't limit fossil fuel production, we will not have a livable climate for our children and grandchildren! | |
| Timothy,Yonker | I would like to know what the back up plan is when the Russians wipe out our electrical grid systems in this county with their cyber attacks. This is not out of the realm of reality with everything that is going on in the world. | ||
| Carolyn,Ginnitti | To Whom It May Concern: At a time when energy costs are at an all-time high, the thought of paying significantly more will be a hardship for all New Yorkers. That will be our reality if the recently released Climate Action Council plan is adopted. This energy blueprint calls for banning the reliable, affordable sources of energy we all depend on. Natural Gas is still the cheapest source of energy in the United States. In Dunkirk, New York, my monthly electric bill is sometimes almost double the amount of my gas bill. I currently use gas to heat my home and I have gas appliances. The fact that this proposal will soon ban Natural Gas is unthinkable. These bans will have a devastating financial impact on everyday New Yorkers as well as the businesses that drive our economy. I vehemently oppose these proposed changes: By January 1, 2024 – LESS THAN 2 YEARS from now – BAN ANY NEW NATURAL GAS SERVICE to existing homes and buildings as well as newly constructed homes and buildings; By 2030, ban the sale of natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying; and By 2035, ban the sale of gasoline powered automobiles. The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. Sincerely, Carolyn Ginnitti | ||
| Gregg,Stranahan | For who ever may be drafting this proposal, Please be aware that there will be no proper infrastructure in place to replace the current energy system and you will absolutely drain taxpayers’ money out for an established technology that only the rich will be able to enjoy. So, if your plan is to turn NY into California, please look at that state now what is going to happen to it and see our future from it. If you want to not create a bigger gap between the rich and poor and eventually have a bigger problem, then I would suggest passing bills that don't shove change down the states throat but instead use technology wisely to put an infrastructure in place that can accommodate everyone without sending the costs through the roof and causing people to leave this state. That is my two cents. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Daniel,Tyler | We have natural gas underneath our country. Where are you going to get the power for all these electric cars. God gave us these materials to use. Going to all electric is not the best way to go. | ||
| Karl,Eckberg | Council members, your attempts at achieving Climate change control are for naught without the largest producers of Carbon emissions, China; Russia and India getting on board. Why place these restrictions, financial burden on those who are doing their best in making a difference? Why place our next generation at risk to achieve what is essentially a drop in the bucket? What's the line... Doing a Dollars worth of work to earn a Nickel? Please listen to all before doing for so few. V/r Karl Eckberg Jamestown | ||
| Donald,Girome | Donzsales | To ban natural fuel for new existing homes is a very bad idea. We all know it will not end there. In the future more bans on natural fuel and other fossil fuels that people rely on to cook and heat their homes will also be attacked with heavy fines for their usage. We are opposed to eliminating fossil fuels for wood burning stoves and natural fuel,period !!! | |
| Wendy,Patterson | The cost of electric for heat and appliances is much higher than natural gas. In a state where we already pay some of the highest taxes in the country, you want to impose yet another burden on people in New York State, especially those who do not live in NYC. This will only drive more people out of the state and hurt those who remain. This is a bad bill and needs to be defeated. | ||
| Paul,Melfi | Retired | I and my family REJECT these plans to hike energy costs. There is no way this will assist us in anything other than cost us more money in the end. Most of us are not wealthy like all the political folks seem to be after they are in the political field for so many years. Almost everything we use today is made from petroleum products from the clothes that you wear to the furniture you sit on. | |
| Joseph,Strefeler | Please do not ban natural gas appliances and heating systems. In the north east it’s the most reliable and affordable energy we have and it’s one of the cleanest natural resources there is. Oil burning systems I can see changing but not natural gas. | ||
| Lisa,O'Connell | Please REJECT the plan to ban the reliable, affordable sources of energy. I am opposed to this plan. | ||
| Denise,Menger | I have no issue with attempting to work on cleaner energy that will decrease pollution. However I don't feel that this plan that you have come up with is at all reasonable. You have way too many people below the poverty line that are struggling day to day to afford essentials and have been for years. How is it going to be possible for those that are unable to feed, shelter and clothe their family's to afford what you are asking and now there are more people than ever effected by the high prices of food, gas and electric. This whole plan needs to be reworked or paused as we work to find common ground to bring us together not to divide use even more. Thank you, Denise Menger | ||
| stephen,oldenburg | This state's government needs to stop with the over reaching it is doing. It is following false science just as they did with the plandemic. Climate change is not real and the real science proves it. You win zero emission vehicles but how do yoy think the material is obtained? Using big machines and destroying the environment where they did huge craters to get the material? The grid can not handle the demand for charging these vehicles and many Americans will not be able to afford the upgrades needed to allow them the ability to charge their vehicles at home. 1 hour to charge (not to mention waiting in line and how many are in that line) versus 10 mins max to fill tank....that's absurd! This is another attempt at more control and removing people rights! NYS is corrupt and the people in charge do not have the qualifications to be in their position. Listen to your bosses, we the people! | ||
| frank,schoenacker | As a lifelong resident of New York's western rural area, I have an issue with legislation eliminating the use of natural gas for home heating, cooking, and clothes drying along with eliminating the sale of gas appliances. In a rural area, it would leave residents with little or no choice of alternative fuel. Our rural counties are already behind in the availability of internet services, and we shouldn't be burdened by loss of a reliable relatively inexpensive form of heating fuel. I'm also against legislation to ban internal combustion engines and require use of electric vehicles at the current time. In our rural areas the miles we drive makes use of current electric vehicles impractical. Until there is a much larger footprint of charging systems available then in my opinion the use of electrical vehicles will be in urban settings only. I believe mass changes in uses of fuel and transportation should be societal changes and not brought about by legislative actions of a few people. | ||
| John ,Genduso | Please reject this plan. Natural gas production and usage is very clean and economical. Forcing people to switch to electricity will cause extreme financial hardship statewide with little to no net environmental improvement because the vast majority of our electricity will continue to be generated using fossil fuels. | ||
| Kerri,Seibert | This is just ABSOLUTELY INSANITY from NYS! Another reason to move my family the h--- out of this s--- hole! As a business owner, this is another soul crushing way to hurt homeowners and businesses! I'm not wasting my time listing all of the ways this will negatively impact because we know that those who make policies in NY only listen to those who are paying them money behind closed doors! | ||
| Marcy,Velte | While I agree that drastic changes need to be made in order to stop the ever increasing effects of climate change, the cost on homeowners and tenants needs to be taken into account. Heating costs are already at an all-time high and have already placed a burden on New Yorkers. Switching from gas and oil to purely electric for heat, cooking, and hot water would lead to astronomical costs. Residents would also need to replace some of their lines in the future, as their appliances or heating units break down. I know for myself, my heating unit, hot water heater, and stove are currently all gas. Replacing these aging systems when they die and switching to all electric, even in my small home, would result in a monthly electric bill my family would not be able to afford. I don't know if this plan as-is is sustainable/affordable for everyday New Yorkers, many of whom are already struggling. Many have older homes, and would need to replace entire systems. Grants would need to be established and in some way the state would need to help subsidize the electric bills of residents. I feel many of these proposals are justified, and I know time is running out in regards to this issue. However, as a new homeowner, I don't see how some of these ideas would work in actuality. A true cost analysis is needed to ensure feasibility, and some homes and buildings would need a longer grandfather period. | ||
| Rebecca,Lindell | I am against all of the current proposals for electric cars and fazing out gas vehicles | ||
| Gary,Henry | Fancher Chair Co | I am strongly against the rush to stopping the use of carbon based fuels such as natural gas. While using solar, wind and other renewable energy is a good thing, we cannot put ourselves in jeopardy of not having proper resources to heat our homes and run our businesses. When we see the issues with renewable energy during a storm (Texas 2021) or depending on foreign countries (Russia) it is obvious that we should be energy independent. This is especially true in rural areas of NYS. Regards, Gary Henry | |
| Marcello,Rotunda | I feel it time stop to this high of gas and Electric you have realize elderly people are a set income and can’t afford this high prices thank you for your time | ||
| Cecilia,Mallia | I fully support the Climate Action plan. As an avid home cook I am a little disappointed about the proposed changes for the reduction and elimination of gas stoves in the climate plan….but I understand sacrificing for the greater good…otherwise it won’t just be my food that is cooking, it will be is. | ||
| Christopher,Bock | There will be a time to go "green", but until that time, we need to rely on fossil fuels and transition our way to more green energy. You cannot just take away all fossil fuels when are grid alone isn't even ready for all green energy. Energy independence is also a national security issue. | ||
| PATRICIA,BELLARDO | In a time when gas prices are soaring, and our USA pipelines were shut down When it costs truckers their jobs c/o Companies cannot support filling tanks with Diesel...... Families are struggling to survive! Add to that stress, the isolation Covid caused.....Mask or No mask Russia invading Ukraine.... All these stressers and now you're pushing to have everyone drive electric cars! Who can afford them! The charging network isn't in place across the country! Make America Strong AGAIN...... throw this Climate Action Council Draft OUT!!!!!!! | ||
| DEBRA,BRUNNER | I strongly object to key components of the Climate Action Council plan and believe the plan needs to be rejected for the sake of every New Yorker. We as New Yorkers rely and expect affordable sources of energy. We are currently are seeing devastating results and increases in the cost of fuel all while when we have vast resources to use right here on our own soil, but due to a political agenda those are no longer an option. Banning the reliable, affordable sources of energy we all depend on will be just another blow to our pockets, which are already struggling with inflation and increasing costs on most products. More government controls to our energy supplies are not the answers we need, want or can afford! Stop this madness. | ||
| Deborah,Babbitt Henry | Deborah Babbitt Henry | I am NOT in favor of this proposed legislation. The escalating cost of electricity are out of control. With constantly allowing the utility companies to raise fees and costs this state is now forcing people out of their homes and this state in droves. People are being forced to choose between keeping warm or eating. Your idea of total electric vehicles is a delusion. I would challenge you that a ten wheel truck with a plow and load of salt would be unable to leave the garage never mind actually accomplish the tasks of plowing the steep slopes and terrains of western NY if it was in fact running on fuel other than diesel. Get your heads out of the clouds and your hands out of the federal money pot and actually take a trip throughout the REAL NY and by that I mean ALL of UPSTATE NY. We do not have "public" transportation - we have miles and miles of country roads where homes sit on acres apart. Electric vehicles would be of absolutely no use here. You want green? Go grow a plant on your city window ledge. | |
| DONALD,LOUCKS | United Industrial Distributors, Inc. | I oppose the implementation of these restrictions on the use of natural gas in NYS. I also oppose the phase out of Internal Combustion Engines in automobiles as proposed in these new energy proposals. | |
| george,d'angelo | dangelo | I am against any and all efforts to stop the use of and expansion of fossil fuels. The idea that green energy can be obtained with only solar, wind, hydrogen or hydro-electric is simply not possible. The growing demand for energy cannot be met without fossil fuels. I do not support any of these proposals! | |
| Heath,Ferry | I don't agree with anything in this bill. The idea of removing natural gas for new buildings is not acceptable. Telling people how they should use their land is not acceptable. The idea of net-zero emissions is not something that will EVER be achievable. The electricity has to come from somewhere, most of that is not zero emissions, adding more electric demand to the grid will only make it unreliable. Require more electric production thus more carbon-emitting plants. Allow the citizens of New York to make their own decisions on how they generate or get their electricity. This whole bill needs to be taken down and removed. Trying to play GOD has never worked in human history. Give more incentive to the individual to adopt their own electric sources. This will allow New York citizens the ability to choose. Denying people the right to choose is and will end badly. No one likes not having choices. Please DO NOT allow this bill, idea, plan, or whatever you are calling it to move forward. | ||
| Richard,Harter | Please defeat these measures. Banning the use of natural gas in new construction and in new heating systems and appliances is a terrible plan. Natural gas is almost always cheaper to use than electricity. Banning the purchase of gasoline powered vehicles will drive up the cost of automobiles. Further, electric vehicles get much of their electricity from the use of fossil fuels. | ||
| Michael ,Creagan | As a resident of a very rural town (Belfast), I strongly oppose the limits and phasing out of natural gas and or propane for the purpose of heating and other household uses. This plan will cripple our way of life and force us out of state. Furthermore, current wind turbines are a hazard to the environment, people, and wildlife in the state. They are unreliable, eventually leak oil, which will pollute the ground and or water around them. The pollution and energy used to create these monsters far exceeds any benefits that could be achieved during their lifetime. | ||
| Jean,Cole | I would like to make my voice heard on the proposal to limit the use of natural gas. I feel that these proposals will not only limit choices of energy by consumers but cause an increase in the skyrocketing cost of fuel! Inflation is at an all time high and these limitations will only add to the ever increasing cost of a necessary commodity. As a taxpayer and a senior citizen on a limited income I’m extremely concerned! Please remember the voices of the people you represent! Sincerely, Jean M. Cole | ||
| William ,Clutter | Reject the plan to ban fossil fuels. As an American I have the right to choose NOT a political puppet | ||
| Sheryl,Carls | PLEASE DON'T MAKE US GO ALL ELECTRIC. WE LIVE IN A VERY RURAL AREA OF CATTARAUGUS COUNTY. ANY ELECTRIC USAGE THAT WE HAVE HERE WE ARE CHARGED A VERY HIGH TRANSPORTATION COST. IT DOUBLES OUR ELECTRIC BILL. WE ARE A STRUGGLING FARM FAMILY TRYING TO MAKE ENDS MEET. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE RETIRED ON LIMITED INCOME. PLUS WE ARE TAKING CARE OF TWO GROWN DAUGHTERS AND A GRANDSON. YOU MAKE US GO ALL ELECTRIC AND WE WILL GO UNDER AND BE FORCED OUT OF OUR HOME. WE COULDN'T AFFORD TO CHANGE OUR ELECTRIC SERVICE TO HANDLE ALL THIS | ||
| michael,angelo | home owner | please do not ban natural gas for homes home appliances lawn mowers that is ridiculous it would put people out of work and kill our economy it will drive more people out of this state myself also | |
| Greg,Church | These plans you propose are ridiculas.The cost burden to the residents of this state are too much.Right now the cost of everything is going up,the economy is in the tank,inflation is as high as its ever been.People have to be able to live.I use oil for heating,and suppliment it with a wood pellet syove.I am retired on a fixed income.Do you think I canm afford all of these proposals/ Its time the democrats started thinking of the people they represent,instead of their own agenda.All this will do is drive the ones that can afford to,to move out of NY state.The ones that can't will not be able to live,not that the democrats really care.You will never get rid of gas powered vehicles.I for one will never,never buy an electric vehicle.Hopefully come next election we will elect somebody that will represent us and stop the democratic madness. | ||
| Aaron,Barkley | This is not a good idea,the grid can't support it, battery technology is not ready, and to much relience on communist china imports. First solve these issues and then reconsider. | ||
| Mary,Carey | Honestly I feel it is too much too soon and would be disastrous for many of us. | ||
| Scott,Lauffer | Resident | The Land Use chapter has an emphasis on afforestation and reforestation, and from this it would seem the CAC makes these the highest priority. Farming is also a top consideration. It strikes me that there is an economic calculation here that's not stated. That's not the same agenda as implementing the CLCPA. It should call for a study and implementation of wind turbines in forested areas. Mature trees will be several hundred feet lower than the blades of today's wind turbines so their compatibilty would seem to offer good land use. Similarly, siting of solar projects should be looked at in light of it's compatibility with other land use. Parking lots, building tops and vacant land unsuitable for farming are some examples of suitable siting. The chapter fails to mention these and many other land uses that should be evaluated for solar and other renewable projects While this chapter calls for a quantitative survey of land resources, it leaves out doing so for renewable sources. The types of land suitable for wind, solar, hydro and storage should be identified, located and totaled. From this a critical understanding of the state's potential for developing it's renewable resources would emerge. While reforestation and agriculture are key to carbon sequestration, this should become a secondary consideration as the state moves to lessen carbon emissions. The section points out that 'mitigation' is needed with the 'impact from renewable energy projects on forests'. I suggest that a statement like that is dismissive to the need for renewable energy projects in forests. When there are competing uses for land, renewable energy projects should have the highest priority in land use considerations. There have been too many cases where renewable projects have lost out to opposition. A greater understanding of the compatibility of renewable energy projects with other land use is needed. Renewable energy projects need to be the central focus of land use. | |
| Shawn,Van Scoy | Gananda Central School District | Chapter 4 discusses that 28% of emissions are from transportation and 32% are from buildings. Chapter 5 Transportation Electrification and electrification in buildings Schools could help with this but their are bariers that NYS has put in place to make this difficult. NYS does not allow for schools to take the risk necessary to be early adopters and pave the way. Simply put NYS limits how frequently a district can ask for aid, particularly construction. Typically a district must wait 20 years before replacing something, therefore I a not going to transision to a new charging system for busses or heating system for my schools unless I KNOW it will work. I do not want to have to replace something 8 years in and have NYS tell me that while I picked the wrong system, I have to wait another 12 years for aid. Chapter 6.4 Barriers and Opportunities Our distric is finishin a EnergyPerformance contract, the completion of the project has been on hold for 8 months because the Power Company is dragging its feet to connect our solar array to the grid. Its been built for 8 months...still not turned on! Chapter 11 T2 This is great, but there are concerns about types of batteries, battery life, why electric and not hybrid, what if we choose the wrong system. We need some pilot districts Chapter 12 B2 We just repolced all the boilers in our district withing the last 5 years. IS NYS really going to fund our schools replacement, again? Schools are an easy place to start if you are serious but you have to remove the barriers and get more help at NYSED facilities office. Chapter 13 E3 The biggest problem is our electric companies, we have brown outs in our area regularly, there is no confdence that they can supply the power and they are unwilling to help us add additional power generation facilities like our solar array to the grid. | |
| Ann,Orffeo | This appears to be a very ambitious plan. While I am very supportive of trying to mitigate damage to our climate I think the part about eliminating natural gas service for appliances goes too far. I am opposed to the idea that the government is going to tell me I cannot have a gas range. I cooked on electric for years up until Sept 2020 when we converted to gas during our kitchen remodel for better control of cooking. Now the government is going to tell me I won't be able to replace my range when its useful lifetime is over? I OPPOSE that portion of this scoping plan. | ||
| Elizabeth,Strum | I want to thank the Climate Action Council for their heroic efforts in pulling together this draft Scoping Plan. I'm encouraged by New York State's actions and feel our state can lead the country. I'm responding to Chapter 17 with regard to market based solutions and the economy. Requiring a fee per ton of green house gasses emitted by a fuel product, starting low with increases each year, has been modeled to be the most efficient and effective way to drastically reduce fossil fuel use. These fees could be applied at the point of extraction or where they enter NY. The fees would generate the means to fund clean energy projects, or they could be distributed as dividends to families to offset the price of transitioning to clean energy. I feel it's important to apply the greenhouse gas fees to more than just the electricity sector via RGGI. It's necessary to encourage electrification. Full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not likely achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. Thank you for reading my comment. | ||
| Laurie,Husted | Thank you to the CAC, working group members, advisory panels, and agency staff who contributed to the development of this impressive plan! I am pleased to see economy-wide strategies in the draft plan because I understand that even full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. I recommend a price on carbon, which thousands of economists and scientists say is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. I further note that a carbon fee and dividend program should be the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs and that the carbon price start low and rise gradually each year. This is a straightforward pathway; it's non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. And please - we must extend the pricing beyond the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Thank you again for reading and doing this critical work. I'm very excited for NY to get it right. | ||
| Eric g,Sheldon | I have read the majority of this proposal and was shocked. I thought I was reading a statement from AOC. This proposal will devastate NY, destroy our economy and will culminate in a mass exodus of our citizens out of the state. You have lost touch with realality. People will not be able to afford these changes in your proposed timeliness. You have no idea of the costs to the taxpayers. Do you have any idea what a geothermal system costs! Eliminating all gas cars, propane & natural gas hookups. Not everyone lives in or near a large city. What about water craft are you going to make everyone crush their gas fuiled boats. How many tons of fiberglass will be introduced into our local landfills. No, I'm definitely not in favor of this proposal. This proposal will eliminate any young couples hope to build a home and work in the state of New York. | ||
| Nancy,Ferris | I am against banning. natural gas in existing & new homes.We already have too many electric outages in WNY.The electric grid needs some serious improvements,I can not imaging what it would be like relying solely on electric to meet our needs.Use some common sense! | ||
| John,West | World Trade Center Orlando and Parti culate Matter Solutions LLC | Carbon Dioxide Removal is NOT far off!! It is here ready to go!! It is not expensive! I just submitted this to PropTech Challenge yesterday. Our US patented Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been fully tested and is ready to go. We are currently seeking a manufacturer - New York State would great! Our DAC retrofits to all global commercial HVAC - so global infrastructure is already in place. It uses no new net energy - in fact it has been proven to save a little energy for the building owners as it sits on top of the large outdoor fans and reduces their buffeting, thus saving some energy. Cost to capture is only about $75/ton as apposed to Carbon Engineering and Climeworks which cost $600/ton or more and each have only one global location. We're ready to go global to millions of locations. Our DAC not only captures not only CO2 but Methane, Ozone, and Heavy Particulates. Can also be adapted to filter HFCs. Lots of new job opportunities as CO2 and Methane will be captured and stored in a container at each building location. Side company like Waste Management will be created to pick up the full container, drop an empty, and take full to be processed to convert both CO2 & Methane into 'green' products such as green aviation fuel and green hydrogen respectively. Financially, manufacturing our DAC will be like have an automobile company come to the state as each DAC unit cost approximately $40K to make. Average new car is now $47K. This will result in clean air in all densely populated areas - CLIMATE JUSTICE. We're ready to go now. Call or e-mail any time. We're ready to speak with NYSERDA tomorrow if you like. Thank you. John John R. West - ********* | |
| Roger,Caiazza | I submitted the attached comment because I believe there are serious utility-scale solar development problems that need to be addressed with responsible solar siting requirements and that a moratorium should be put in place until those requirements are in place. | ||
| Linda,Wasiela | I do not support the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I do not support the proposals that were put forward by the council. I think that we will lose businesses with no new ones will be created. This will be a hardship on New Yorkers. Who can afford electric cars. What are we to do if we are traveling anywhere it will take days and time to find charging stations for the battery. I use natural gas in my home to heat, cook, water heater,dryer and my generator when power goes out. I am not happy about any of these proposals and it makes me want to leave our state because I will no longer be able to afford to live here. | ||
| Thomas,Huebbers | What is Russia doing in the Ukraine? The following is published by the United States Government for the Public to read. RUSSIA EMP THREAT The Russian Federation’s Military Doctrine, Plans, and Capabilities for Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack Dr. Peter Vincent Pry Executive Director EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security January 2021 CHINA EMP THREAT The People’s Republic of China Military Doctrine, Plans, and Capabilities for Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack Dr. Peter Vincent Pry Executive Director EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security June 10, 2020 | ||
| R,Nevins | Greetings, I am beyond disappointed with the direction of an emission free NY / NYC. The current roadmap and implementation hurts the working class, residents of NY, and in the long run, will increase Generation cost to the consumer. One of the biggest mistakes lawmakers have made was closing Indian Point. 2 GigaWatts of city generation- CARBON EMISSION FREE - GONE. 1,000 Union - Pensioned Jobs GONE. Indian Point was replaced with three Natural Gas Power Plants, you want Green but lead to the contrary. Now you're aiming at my organization that I've devoted over 15 years of my life; Union / Pensioned. The other is not renewing in-city generation permits. In the height of Summer, the NYC power demand climbs over 30 GigaWatts, I've seen this number climbing year after year. It is preposterous to tell the people of NY that eliminating Peaking and in city Generation will help with your climate agenda. Your policy will cause rolling Brown outs and put hardworking utility workers out. Who is going to supply the power required for all the new electric stoves, when Natural Gas is banned, and the net increase in power demand with the countless new high-rise buildings. Do I have to mention the generation required to charge the electric vehicle city that you propose? INSANITY. Will you ban the New England Commercial Traffic that passes through the BQE daily? Please renew our in-city emission permits, and let us retire by 2043. Don't destroy our retirements. | ||
| Marianne,Krasny | Cornell University | Given that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in NY, and that carbon emissions from livestock are significant, I would like to see a focus on programs: (1) for consumers, schools, hospitals, prisons, and government offices that promote healthy diets (low meat/low dairy/plant-rich), and (2) for farmers that provide opportunities to take advantage of consumer interest in fresh foods and other products and transition to new crops (e.g., vegetables, northern varieties of rice, hemp). 1. Healthy diets (a) Many school districts including Binghamton and NYC are already implementing Farm to School, Meatless Mondays, and similar programs that increase consumption of plant proteins and low-fat/low-emissions meats (e.g., chicken). Such programs can also use locally-sourced foods and thus spur local economies. The state should increase support for such programs through education and grants to school districts. (b) Hospitals, prisons, and government office buildings that serve food could have similar healthy food procurement programs, thus significantly expanding the health and emissions benefits. (c) The state can also offer incentives (e.g., grants for purchase of local plant-rich/low-carbon foods) to restaurants and other food services. (d) Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Colleges of Human Ecology and Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), and Culinary Institute of America Plant-forward Diet program can be stakeholders. 2. Farmer opportunities (a) The state can provide education and grants for farmers wishing to take advantage of emerging markets for plant-rich foods. (b) Cornell Cooperative Extension and CALS can be stakeholders. | |
| Jane,Reape | To eliminate Natural Gas in new construction, no new gas service to existing buildings or no new natural gas appliances is both unrealistic and very costly to the citizens you serve. In order to do away with natural gas and gasoline automobiles you must replace both with an alternative source. Electricity is extremely expensive to heat your home. Electricity has to be produced somehow and wind and solar will not produce enough to heat homes or power electric cars. Nuclear power plants would help and they are clean but that is not part of the climate change plan. I'd like to know how our farmers, factories and forestry can possibly function without gasoline powered equipment. While I am for a clean environment I feel it would be better to have the technology before we mandate change. Our citizens cannot afford this plan. I strongly urge the Climate Action Council to rethink these changes and consider your constituents. | ||
| Karen,Biesanz | NYS’s Climate Action Plan is brilliant, revolutionary and a necessity. The inexorable progression of climate needs our fullest attention and financial support. It is already causing or intensifying environmental disasters in NYS and throughout the world. This plan will cost a lot to implement. The transition may be difficult. But the steps in the Plan must be taken. As climate change worsens, as it is has been doing, the resulting upheaval will be difficult for society. As an example, look at the current Russian-Ukrainian war. It has forced people to migrate and disrupt their lives in both countries. Many cannot work. Financial infrastructures have disappeared. Perhaps Putin aims to take over the Ukrainian breadbasket agriculture because so much of Russia is now melting permafrost and more land is needed. So many countries depend on grain from the Ukraine and now the farmers can’t plant. How can millions of Ukrainians return home when their homes are gone? The parallel here is that these same hardships are produced by climate change. And climate change is affecting billions of people, not millions. If we don’t make the changes in Climate Action Plan and others like it throughout the world, no matter how costly, the human species will become extinct. We cannot snivel over paying a gas tax. We need that pressure to help us drive less and switch to electric cars. We need to continue to develop and use the clean green alternative energies available and research more alternatives. It may look as if we are being forced to buy and use heat pumps and electric vehicles, make less waste, eschew fossil fuel machinery, and this will make some furious, as did mask mandates, but it is the way needed to save our species and others. The pandemic has helped us see how societal changes had to be made and we came up with some good alternatives. More people worked from home and attended Zoom meetings. Food delivery system thrived. People drove less. | ||
| Bill,Krazinski | Get your heads out of the sky. Return to earth. Execute a plan that makes sense. There will not be anyone left in nys to pay taxes. Already my electric bill has gone ftom $90 Per month to $150 per month. Due to the states arrogant legislators who do not care about their constituents. The feds even worse. Fuel $2 per gallon now $5 per gallon. Voters will come out it record numbers. Vote the incompetent leaders out. That would be the present majority. A majority that votes for their ideology not their constituents. | ||
| Joni,Riggle | Considering post- pandemic economic stresses; in the midst of ongoing inflation and a global energy crisis this is NOT the time to implement the overreaching and punishing goals of the CLCPA. The true cost benefit analysis is sorely lacking. Taxpayers and ratepayers will suffer greatly under this misguided, overly aggressive energy plan. Reliable and affordable electricity is critical to a nation’s economic prosperity, national security, health, freedom and the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. Highly subsidized, unreliable wind and solar do not and will never amount to meaningful power sources. Battery storage is still obscenely expensive and has minimal storage capacity as meaningful backup. Even NYISO admits we need NEW technology [does not yet exist] to meet the unrealistic CLCPA mandate. Sadly, media -driven climate hysteria leads to knee jerk and reckless reactions. NYS contributes less than 1% to global emissions, so realistically, even if we were successful decarbonizing all sectors, it won't make a dent, as India and China will continue increasing global emissions for many years to come. Requiring NYS residents to buy heat pumps, electric vehicles and electrify their heating systems will be cost prohibitive for most. Many more people die from cold exposure than heat. We are witnessing energy poverty in Europe, with people having to choose between heating their home versus buying food. NYS needs to invest in R&D for sound energy alternatives, instead of wasting resources and destroying our natural environment with massive arrays of low producing wind and solar projects.. We have time to develop less intrusive and emissions free, next generation nuclear -SMRs. Please stop the UNJUST TRANSITION-the relentless land -grabbing destruction in Upstate NY for wind and solar projects, made more egregious with lack of transmission [bottlenecks won't be resolved anytime soon] to feed load centers in NYC and LI. Please go back to the drawing board!. | ||
| Brian,Wilson | Syracuse DSA/Nuclear NY | Hello NYSERDA and all others interested. After reading through the Draft Scoping Plan, I am submitting the critiques drawn up by members of Nuclear NY, whose summation of the issues I am in agreement with and written more eloquently then I could have done (they are likely submitting it as well). The only addition I have is the use of Mark Z. Jacobson as a source throughout the Plan. His work on 100% renewables has been critiqued, and his response to that critique was not to respond with scientific explanation, but a effectively a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" (aka a SLAPP suit) against those who gave critique. This unprofessionalness, in addition the the unscientific basis of his claims, should bar the use of Jacobson's work in any Scoping plan NYSERDA Drafts. Thank you, Brian Wilson | |
| Peter,O'Connor | I drive an electric car and want clean air and water, but this plan is a fairy tale. The stated benefits are stated as fact with no rigor in the statistical models. This plan will impoverish New York by driving up energy costs and force even more people to leave the state. High energy business will move to other states or overseas, so there will be zero net climate effect. Good paying jobs and our tax base will be lost. Those of us who remember the Ice Storm know that relying solely on electric power is unwise. Under this plan residents of the North Country would not have been able to survive and recover. Europe is learning the very hard lesson of trying to go green before technology is ready. They are forced to by energy from petro-dictators while people freeze and prices soar. There needs to be baseload electric power that is reliable and reasonably priced. The best sources are natural gas and nuclear. Natural gas is responsible for the vast improvements in our CO2 emissions. It is a domestic energy source with very few drawbacks. Methane release can be mitigated. I slept within a few yards of a nuclear reactor while in the Navy. We need to get over our irrational fears and build the only true zero emissions power plants all over the state. No serious plan would exclude vastly expanded nuclear power generation. Batteries and electric cars are dependent on rare earth metals and other minerals that are not domestically available in sufficient quantities to support this plan. Once again we will be held hostage for our energy, this time by China. Any plan that favors one group of people over another based on immutable characteristics is unconstitutional. Government compulsion leads to a distorted incentives and crushes competitive ideas. When the automobile was invented, there was a long transition period when it took over from the horse. This plan is in essence shooting all the horses. The rich people will be fine, the working poor will suffer. | ||
| Bruce,Downie | I read the article in the February/March issue of the NYS Conservationist concerning your Plan. I did not see anything about nuclear power being used for electricity generaton, only wind, solar and hydro. Wind and solar are intermittent and the intermittency aspect cannot be solved with storage batteries. Refer to "How to Avoid a Climate Disastor" written by Bill Gates, pages 75-77,79, 91-94. Solar is not very efficient in NYS due to the amount of sunshine we receive. Another problem with it is the solar farms tend to be located on flat farm land that we will need someday to produce food. One of the best ways to ramp up electricity production, according to him, is use modern nuclear energy. Refer to pages 84--87 in his book. Nobody seems to want to talk about nuclear, especially people like yourselves who are in a position to do something about it. Please read the book! France gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear power and I have not heard of problems. | ||
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | My name is Jon Randall and I live in Webster, NY 14580. I am a retired software developer and climate advocate with The Climate Reality Project. I am deeply concerned about climate change because I lived in CA from 1997 - 2020 and saw the steadily worsening heat and drought over that period. In 2020 I relocated to NY. The more I learn, the more I appreciate the need for rapid change since several of the “tipping points” are already progressing to where we will not be able to stop them. I know that buildings are the largest source of GHG emissions in NY and we must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses to net zero. I support elimination of: * The “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e) * The rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I support: * All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher) * The Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy) * Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy) * The Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) * Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera) * Upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future * Funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind as we make this critical transition. I congratulate the Climate Action Council for mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable, in spite of misinformation to the contrary. The other, rarely mentioned, truth is that we will run out of fossil fuels and will transition anyway. So let’s do it now. The recent events in Ukraine underscore the need for fossil fuel independence. I reject calls to increase domestic fossil fuel production. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. | |
| Richard,Emery | We need to progressively eliminate the use of fossil fuels and not go off half cocked and jeapordize peoples incomes and cheaper uses until the replacement is found. I oppose your restrictions at this point. | ||
| Richard,Emery | We need to progressively eliminate the use of fossil fuels and not go off half cocked and jeapordize peoples incomes and cheaper uses until the replacement is found. I oppose your restrictions at this point. | ||
| Robert,Kilcoyne | [email protected] | We the people can not afford to be lead by radicle thinkers any longer! The radicals have caused to much damige to our country in every aspect. The electric grid can't handle what we have today let alone everyone plugging in a car or 2 per household, and every household running on nothing but electricity!!! So everyone heating houses and plugging cars in during winter and the power goes out. Can't go to work, drive to safety of freezing to death and the rich and elite radicles push to stay in power by cutting the Americans throat's. I agree we need to clean America up but it can't happen over night and we are tired of the radicals secret agenda's!!! | |
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | My name is Jon Randall and I live in Webster, NY 14580. I am a retired software developer and climate advocate with The Climate Reality Project. I am deeply concerned about climate change because I lived in CA from 1997 - 2020 and saw the steadily worsening heat and drought over that period. In 2020 I relocated to NY. The more I learn, the more I appreciate the need for rapid change since several of the “tipping points” are already progressing to where we will not be able to stop them. I know that buildings are the largest source of GHG emissions in NY and we must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses to net zero. I support elimination of: * The “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e) * The rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I support: * All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher) * The Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy) * Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy) * The Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) * Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera) * Upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future * Funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind as we make this critical transition. I congratulate the Climate Action Council for mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable, in spite of misinformation to the contrary. The other, rarely mentioned, truth is that we will run out of fossil fuels and will transition anyway. So let’s do it now. The recent events in Ukraine underscore the need for fossil fuel independence. I reject calls to increase domestic fossil fuel production. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. | |
| Bruce,Downie | I read the article in the February/March issue of the NYS Conservationist concerning your Plan. I did not see anything about nuclear power being used for electricity generaton, only wind, solar and hydro. Wind and solar are intermittent and the intermittency aspect cannot be solved with storage batteries. Refer to "How to Avoid a Climate Disastor" written by Bill Gates, pages 75-77,79, 91-94. Solar is not very efficient in NYS due to the amount of sunshine we receive. Another problem with it is the solar farms tend to be located on flat farm land that we will need someday to produce food. One of the best ways to ramp up electricity production, according to him, is use modern nuclear energy. Refer to pages 84--87 in his book. Nobody seems to want to talk about nuclear, especially people like yourselves who are in a position to do something about it. Please read the book! France gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear power and I have not heard of problems. | ||
| Peter,O'Connor | I drive an electric car and want clean air and water, but this plan is a fairy tale. The stated benefits are stated as fact with no rigor in the statistical models. This plan will impoverish New York by driving up energy costs and force even more people to leave the state. High energy business will move to other states or overseas, so there will be zero net climate effect. Good paying jobs and our tax base will be lost. Those of us who remember the Ice Storm know that relying solely on electric power is unwise. Under this plan residents of the North Country would not have been able to survive and recover. Europe is learning the very hard lesson of trying to go green before technology is ready. They are forced to by energy from petro-dictators while people freeze and prices soar. There needs to be baseload electric power that is reliable and reasonably priced. The best sources are natural gas and nuclear. Natural gas is responsible for the vast improvements in our CO2 emissions. It is a domestic energy source with very few drawbacks. Methane release can be mitigated. I slept within a few yards of a nuclear reactor while in the Navy. We need to get over our irrational fears and build the only true zero emissions power plants all over the state. No serious plan would exclude vastly expanded nuclear power generation. Batteries and electric cars are dependent on rare earth metals and other minerals that are not domestically available in sufficient quantities to support this plan. Once again we will be held hostage for our energy, this time by China. Any plan that favors one group of people over another based on immutable characteristics is unconstitutional. Government compulsion leads to a distorted incentives and crushes competitive ideas. When the automobile was invented, there was a long transition period when it took over from the horse. This plan is in essence shooting all the horses. The rich people will be fine, the working poor will suffer. | ||
| Brian,Wilson | Syracuse DSA/Nuclear NY | Hello NYSERDA and all others interested. After reading through the Draft Scoping Plan, I am submitting the critiques drawn up by members of Nuclear NY, whose summation of the issues I am in agreement with and written more eloquently then I could have done (they are likely submitting it as well). The only addition I have is the use of Mark Z. Jacobson as a source throughout the Plan. His work on 100% renewables has been critiqued, and his response to that critique was not to respond with scientific explanation, but a effectively a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" (aka a SLAPP suit) against those who gave critique. This unprofessionalness, in addition the the unscientific basis of his claims, should bar the use of Jacobson's work in any Scoping plan NYSERDA Drafts. Thank you, Brian Wilson | |
| Joni,Riggle | Considering post- pandemic economic stresses; in the midst of ongoing inflation and a global energy crisis this is NOT the time to implement the overreaching and punishing goals of the CLCPA. The true cost benefit analysis is sorely lacking. Taxpayers and ratepayers will suffer greatly under this misguided, overly aggressive energy plan. Reliable and affordable electricity is critical to a nation’s economic prosperity, national security, health, freedom and the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. Highly subsidized, unreliable wind and solar do not and will never amount to meaningful power sources. Battery storage is still obscenely expensive and has minimal storage capacity as meaningful backup. Even NYISO admits we need NEW technology [does not yet exist] to meet the unrealistic CLCPA mandate. Sadly, media -driven climate hysteria leads to knee jerk and reckless reactions. NYS contributes less than 1% to global emissions, so realistically, even if we were successful decarbonizing all sectors, it won't make a dent, as India and China will continue increasing global emissions for many years to come. Requiring NYS residents to buy heat pumps, electric vehicles and electrify their heating systems will be cost prohibitive for most. Many more people die from cold exposure than heat. We are witnessing energy poverty in Europe, with people having to choose between heating their home versus buying food. NYS needs to invest in R&D for sound energy alternatives, instead of wasting resources and destroying our natural environment with massive arrays of low producing wind and solar projects.. We have time to develop less intrusive and emissions free, next generation nuclear -SMRs. Please stop the UNJUST TRANSITION-the relentless land -grabbing destruction in Upstate NY for wind and solar projects, made more egregious with lack of transmission [bottlenecks won't be resolved anytime soon] to feed load centers in NYC and LI. Please go back to the drawing board!. | ||
| Bill,Krazinski | Get your heads out of the sky. Return to earth. Execute a plan that makes sense. There will not be anyone left in nys to pay taxes. Already my electric bill has gone ftom $90 Per month to $150 per month. Due to the states arrogant legislators who do not care about their constituents. The feds even worse. Fuel $2 per gallon now $5 per gallon. Voters will come out it record numbers. Vote the incompetent leaders out. That would be the present majority. A majority that votes for their ideology not their constituents. | ||
| James ,Roush | I am not in favor of skyrocketing energy costs associated with the proposed transition away from fossil fuels in NYS. It will be detrimental to middle and lower class families as well as, the majority of businesses! It will lead to an even larger exodus from the state increasing taxes for those who remain. Thank you | ||
| Karen,Biesanz | NYS’s Climate Action Plan is brilliant, revolutionary and a necessity. The inexorable progression of climate needs our fullest attention and financial support. It is already causing or intensifying environmental disasters in NYS and throughout the world. This plan will cost a lot to implement. The transition may be difficult. But the steps in the Plan must be taken. As climate change worsens, as it is has been doing, the resulting upheaval will be difficult for society. As an example, look at the current Russian-Ukrainian war. It has forced people to migrate and disrupt their lives in both countries. Many cannot work. Financial infrastructures have disappeared. Perhaps Putin aims to take over the Ukrainian breadbasket agriculture because so much of Russia is now melting permafrost and more land is needed. So many countries depend on grain from the Ukraine and now the farmers can’t plant. How can millions of Ukrainians return home when their homes are gone? The parallel here is that these same hardships are produced by climate change. And climate change is affecting billions of people, not millions. If we don’t make the changes in Climate Action Plan and others like it throughout the world, no matter how costly, the human species will become extinct. We cannot snivel over paying a gas tax. We need that pressure to help us drive less and switch to electric cars. We need to continue to develop and use the clean green alternative energies available and research more alternatives. It may look as if we are being forced to buy and use heat pumps and electric vehicles, make less waste, eschew fossil fuel machinery, and this will make some furious, as did mask mandates, but it is the way needed to save our species and others. The pandemic has helped us see how societal changes had to be made and we came up with some good alternatives. More people worked from home and attended Zoom meetings. Food delivery system thrived. People drove less. | ||
| Jane,Reape | To eliminate Natural Gas in new construction, no new gas service to existing buildings or no new natural gas appliances is both unrealistic and very costly to the citizens you serve. In order to do away with natural gas and gasoline automobiles you must replace both with an alternative source. Electricity is extremely expensive to heat your home. Electricity has to be produced somehow and wind and solar will not produce enough to heat homes or power electric cars. Nuclear power plants would help and they are clean but that is not part of the climate change plan. I'd like to know how our farmers, factories and forestry can possibly function without gasoline powered equipment. While I am for a clean environment I feel it would be better to have the technology before we mandate change. Our citizens cannot afford this plan. I strongly urge the Climate Action Council to rethink these changes and consider your constituents. | ||
| Marianne,Krasny | Cornell University | Given that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in NY, and that carbon emissions from livestock are significant, I would like to see a focus on programs: (1) for consumers, schools, hospitals, prisons, and government offices that promote healthy diets (low meat/low dairy/plant-rich), and (2) for farmers that provide opportunities to take advantage of consumer interest in fresh foods and other products and transition to new crops (e.g., vegetables, northern varieties of rice, hemp). 1. Healthy diets (a) Many school districts including Binghamton and NYC are already implementing Farm to School, Meatless Mondays, and similar programs that increase consumption of plant proteins and low-fat/low-emissions meats (e.g., chicken). Such programs can also use locally-sourced foods and thus spur local economies. The state should increase support for such programs through education and grants to school districts. (b) Hospitals, prisons, and government office buildings that serve food could have similar healthy food procurement programs, thus significantly expanding the health and emissions benefits. (c) The state can also offer incentives (e.g., grants for purchase of local plant-rich/low-carbon foods) to restaurants and other food services. (d) Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Colleges of Human Ecology and Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), and Culinary Institute of America Plant-forward Diet program can be stakeholders. 2. Farmer opportunities (a) The state can provide education and grants for farmers wishing to take advantage of emerging markets for plant-rich foods. (b) Cornell Cooperative Extension and CALS can be stakeholders. | |
| R,Nevins | Greetings, I am beyond disappointed with the direction of an emission free NY / NYC. The current roadmap and implementation hurts the working class, residents of NY, and in the long run, will increase Generation cost to the consumer. One of the biggest mistakes lawmakers have made was closing Indian Point. 2 GigaWatts of city generation- CARBON EMISSION FREE - GONE. 1,000 Union - Pensioned Jobs GONE. Indian Point was replaced with three Natural Gas Power Plants, you want Green but lead to the contrary. Now you're aiming at my organization that I've devoted over 15 years of my life; Union / Pensioned. The other is not renewing in-city generation permits. In the height of Summer, the NYC power demand climbs over 30 GigaWatts, I've seen this number climbing year after year. It is preposterous to tell the people of NY that eliminating Peaking and in city Generation will help with your climate agenda. Your policy will cause rolling Brown outs and put hardworking utility workers out. Who is going to supply the power required for all the new electric stoves, when Natural Gas is banned, and the net increase in power demand with the countless new high-rise buildings. Do I have to mention the generation required to charge the electric vehicle city that you propose? INSANITY. Will you ban the New England Commercial Traffic that passes through the BQE daily? Please renew our in-city emission permits, and let us retire by 2043. Don't destroy our retirements. | ||
| Thomas,Huebbers | What is Russia doing in the Ukraine? The following is published by the United States Government for the Public to read. RUSSIA EMP THREAT The Russian Federation’s Military Doctrine, Plans, and Capabilities for Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack Dr. Peter Vincent Pry Executive Director EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security January 2021 CHINA EMP THREAT The People’s Republic of China Military Doctrine, Plans, and Capabilities for Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack Dr. Peter Vincent Pry Executive Director EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security June 10, 2020 | ||
| Daniel,Duell | Please reject these measures. | ||
| Linda,Wasiela | I do not support the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I do not support the proposals that were put forward by the council. I think that we will lose businesses with no new ones will be created. This will be a hardship on New Yorkers. Who can afford electric cars. What are we to do if we are traveling anywhere it will take days and time to find charging stations for the battery. I use natural gas in my home to heat, cook, water heater,dryer and my generator when power goes out. I am not happy about any of these proposals and it makes me want to leave our state because I will no longer be able to afford to live here. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | I submitted the attached comment because I believe there are serious utility-scale solar development problems that need to be addressed with responsible solar siting requirements and that a moratorium should be put in place until those requirements are in place. | ||
| John,West | World Trade Center Orlando and Parti culate Matter Solutions LLC | Carbon Dioxide Removal is NOT far off!! It is here ready to go!! It is not expensive! I just submitted this to PropTech Challenge yesterday. Our US patented Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been fully tested and is ready to go. We are currently seeking a manufacturer - New York State would great! Our DAC retrofits to all global commercial HVAC - so global infrastructure is already in place. It uses no new net energy - in fact it has been proven to save a little energy for the building owners as it sits on top of the large outdoor fans and reduces their buffeting, thus saving some energy. Cost to capture is only about $75/ton as apposed to Carbon Engineering and Climeworks which cost $600/ton or more and each have only one global location. We're ready to go global to millions of locations. Our DAC not only captures not only CO2 but Methane, Ozone, and Heavy Particulates. Can also be adapted to filter HFCs. Lots of new job opportunities as CO2 and Methane will be captured and stored in a container at each building location. Side company like Waste Management will be created to pick up the full container, drop an empty, and take full to be processed to convert both CO2 & Methane into 'green' products such as green aviation fuel and green hydrogen respectively. Financially, manufacturing our DAC will be like have an automobile company come to the state as each DAC unit cost approximately $40K to make. Average new car is now $47K. This will result in clean air in all densely populated areas - CLIMATE JUSTICE. We're ready to go now. Call or e-mail any time. We're ready to speak with NYSERDA tomorrow if you like. Thank you. John John R. West - john******** | |
| Nancy,Ferris | I am against banning. natural gas in existing & new homes.We already have too many electric outages in WNY.The electric grid needs some serious improvements,I can not imaging what it would be like relying solely on electric to meet our needs.Use some common sense! | ||
| Chelsea,Fellows | The Draft Scoping Plan will not benefit many individuals in my area. If anything it will place more hardships on many local communities. The poverty line in the northern climate is already stressed and adding new measures to this will end in bad results. Many individuals depend on wood, propane and natural gas heat for their homes. The way they heat their homes is factored into their monthly budgets and some of those budgets are already strained with the inflated costs of living. By doing this it would place many individuals well below the poverty line. My Husband and I are purchasing a home in South Glens Falls that has natural gas heat, if we were expected to adapt to this draft scoping plan and change our heating to electric by a certain year that would put more strain on our finances that are already budgeted. Also with the change over the electric grid would not be able to accommodate the new load. This would then put a strain on the energy companies to adjust/fix their infrastructure to accommodate the new load that is being thrust upon them, which would then lead to higher costs. Over the past few months the electric bills have already gone up a large amount. Telling the people of New York to switch to electric powered cars is also not acceptable. As stated previously many individuals in the northern part of New York have a limited income and cannot afford to buy new vehicles let alone used vehicles. Nor could they pay fines that would no doubt be placed upon them if they do not abide by the measures that are being placed upon them. I understand the emissions aspect of this new plan and wanting to protect the environment but one must also think of the people who live in this environment. The working man is the backbone of society and deserves more respect then those that don't have stress over bills/expenses. Thank you for taking time to read my thoughts. | ||
| Kara ,LaBounty | As a New York resident and business owner, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my business but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my job, my family, my friends, and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. Everyone I know are unable to afford to change their homes to all electric, as well as buy an electric vehicle. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. In the area we live in, we cannot trust having electricity as our only source of power. We lose power in our area relatively often. Gas and wood burning stoves are our only source of heat at that point. | ||
| Wayne,Helser | In my opinion you People are nuts. This Country is supposed to a Free Country. The electric grid is not going to be able to handle the power draw. The heat from electric is not warm which means it will go on more often. Now the Transportation issue. I will never buy a electric car.. I drive a Prius sometimes the batteries warranty is good for 10 yrs. after that YOU pay a big price for new batteries. Open pit mining to get the materials from the ground not here in the U.S.A but other Countries. What about the Industry? Are you going to exempt them from gas heat? Tires,clothes,plastics come from OIL. So the USA buys oil from other countries, you People make NO sense. Thank You. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Thomas Johns 97 Dutch Rd Central Square, NY 13036 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Dwayne Brannock 97 Dutch Rd Central Square, NY 13036 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, William Hudson 760 Railroad Ave West Babylon, NY 11704 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As a New York resident and business owner, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my business but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my business, my employees’ livelihoods, and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. The plan does not consider the $20,000 to $50,000 it will cost consumers to electrify their homes, nor does it consider direct cost, opportunity cost, or return on investment. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. Additionally, the risk of economic leakage is very real. Right now, the cost of the CLCPA will be a massive job loss. New York should reach these state goals by using assets and infrastructure that already exist as well as an “all of the above” approach, which includes natural gas, renewable natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and emerging technologies, rather than taking fuels away. Natural Gas delivers over four times more energy during peak demand than electricity, and natural gas is storm resistant, allowing for 99.9% reliability in storm events. I ask you to please strongly consider an alternative proposal that strives to give consumers options. Competition is imperative to protect consumers while driving innovation, ingenuity, and progress. Please contact me or Karen Arpino ([email protected]) with the Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, our trade association, if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Tanya Carpenter |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As a New York resident and business owner, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my business but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my business, my employees’ livelihoods, and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. The plan does not consider the $20,000 to $50,000 it will cost consumers to electrify their homes, nor does it consider direct cost, opportunity cost, or return on investment. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. Additionally, the risk of economic leakage is very real. Right now, the cost of the CLCPA will be a massive job loss. New York should reach these state goals by using assets and infrastructure that already exist as well as an “all of the above” approach, which includes natural gas, renewable natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and emerging technologies, rather than taking fuels away. Natural Gas delivers over four times more energy during peak demand than electricity, and natural gas is storm resistant, allowing for 99.9% reliability in storm events. I ask you to please strongly consider an alternative proposal that strives to give consumers options. Competition is imperative to protect consumers while driving innovation, ingenuity, and progress. Please contact me or Karen Arpino ([email protected]) with the Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, our trade association, if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kara LaBounty |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As a New York resident, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my daily life but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my livelihood and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. The plan does not consider the $20,000 to $50,000 it will cost consumers to electrify their homes, nor does it consider direct cost, opportunity cost, or return on investment. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. Additionally, the risk of economic leakage is very real. Right now, the cost of the CLCPA will be a massive job loss. New York should reach these state goals by using assets and infrastructure that already exist as well as an “all of the above” approach, which includes natural gas, renewable natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and emerging technologies, rather than taking fuels away. Natural Gas delivers over four times more energy during peak demand than electricity, and natural gas is storm resistant, allowing for 99.9% reliability in storm events. I ask you to please strongly consider an alternative proposal that strives to give consumers options. Sincerely, Chelsea Fellows |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Edward Lee 7075 Miller Rd Newark, NY 14513 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Paula Shaw |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Thomas Capuano |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Keith Schmidt 719 Dutcherville Rd Constantia, NY 13044 |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Joseph Murphy 5 Lochland Rd Valhalla, NY 10595 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, George Krug 514 Millers Corners Rd East Greenbush, NY 12061 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Raymond Belanger 309 Trippany Rd Massena, NY 13662 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Beverly stevens 243 Washburn Rd Gansevoort, NY 12831 |
||
| Ben,Guthrie | Upstate Service Associates | I work in the HVAC industry and can see that only leadership by the State of New York will initiate the change that is crucial. My industry has changed from the old refrigerants to the new refrigerants and now to the latest round of low GWP and ODP. Each time industry screamed how expensive and impossible it would be and each time it was accomplished. We can do more and we must do more! | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield NY Resident | (Part 3 of document submitted earlier today). I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield NY Resident | (These comments are part of a longer document uploaded and submitted earlier today.) I wholeheartedly support upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating . Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield NY Resident | (These comments are part of a longer document uploaded and submitted earlier today.) I am deeply concerned about climate change because of the danger it poses to future generations and the present challenges we must already face. We must dramatically reduce our emissions in every sector to limit further harm. We must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses - the largest source of GHG emissions in NY - to net zero. For some, the costs of heating a home can be crippling in the winter and the lack of air conditioning in the summer can put them in peril. Electrification, in combination with weatherization and other efficiency improvements provides a path to affordable living for those who struggle to maintain acceptable living conditions. For others, it provides a path to more predictable living expenses and a cleaner environment. For all of us, it provides a path to a cleaner and better future. Fossil fuel interests have been spreading misinformation about the Scoping Plan, describing its vision for a fossil fuel-free New York as “unaffordable”, and electric home heating as “unreliable”. I reject these deliberate mischaracterizations and I congratulate the Climate Action Council for successfully mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable. The recent events in Ukraine underscore the need for energy independence and fossil fuel independence. Putin’s horrific actions are compelling nations across the globe to reduce their dependence on oil and gas so as to avoid funding a tyrannous regime. Furthermore, the rising cost of fossil fuels since Putin’s Ukraine invasion has been dictated by global market conditions and not by our nation’s ability (or inability) to meet its own fossil fuel needs. We must do our part to remove fossil fuels from the international geopolitical equation, and at the same time provide reliable, clean and affordable energy to meet the needs of homes and businesses in New York State. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Ronny Moore Old Post Rd Kinderhook, NY 12106 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Karl Wengenroth 193-1/2 Linden Ave Middletown, NY 10940 |
||
| Bonnie,Prosser | Your Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan is an unsustainable and unaffordable proposal that will further burden residents, families, businesses and communities and force even more people to flee the state. The Climate Action Council has released a blueprint to alter the state’s energy plans and its timeframe is not only ridiculous, its punitive, discriminatory, harmful and unfair. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuels we currently have and use. Natural gas hookups and services, as well as those from propane and heating oil, are vital for New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off these dependable sources of energy would be costly to residents and businesses and ineffective on a global scale. The climate control studies reducing fossil fuels and stating that they are the cause of global warming among all your other charges have not been proven nor have they been substantiated. There are several legitimate scientists who totally disagree with this theory therefore, your plan should be scraped immediately. Give the scientists the time they need and deserve to do their studies instead of rushing a plan through without informed and accurate information. This is not the end of the world if we don't and it makes no sense whatsoever to jump into this with a foolhardy plan such as you currently have to offer/proposed Scientists say we have enough untapped fossil fuel reserves to last us another 500 years. While it is important that we seek ways to protect our environment and conserve natural resources universally and not unilaterally, there is no immediate danger to the climate and I'm sure with constant research being done they will find a more suitable and productive plan that will. The United State is not the only country in the world. They are many other countries that are polluting the earth many times over what we are, what about them? We should not be made to suffer while other countries do nothing | ||
| Peter,Prosser | Your Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan is an unsustainable and unaffordable proposal that will further burden residents, families, businesses and communities and force even more people to flee the state. The Climate Action Council has released a blueprint to alter the state’s energy plans and its timeframe is not only ridiculous, its punitive, discriminatory, harmful and unfair. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuels we currently have and use. Natural gas hookups and services, as well as those from propane and heating oil, are vital for New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off these dependable sources of energy would be costly to residents and businesses and ineffective on a global scale. The climate control studies reducing fossil fuels and stating that they are the cause of global warming among all your other charges have not been proven nor have they been substantiated. There are several legitimate scientists who totally disagree with this theory therefore, your plan should be scraped immediately. Give the scientists the time they need and deserve to do their studies instead of rushing a plan through without informed and accurate information. This is not the end of the world if we don't and it makes no sense whatsoever to jump into this with a foolhardy plan such as you currently have to offer/proposed Scientists say we have enough untapped fossil fuel reserves to last us another 500 years. While it is important that we seek ways to protect our environment and conserve natural resources universally and not unilaterally, there is no immediate danger to the climate and I'm sure with constant research being done they will find a more suitable and productive plan that will. The United State is not the only country in the world. They are many other countries that are polluting the earth many times over what we are, what about them? We should not be made to suffer while other countries do nothing | ||
| David,Prosser | Your Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan is an unsustainable and unaffordable proposal that will further burden residents, families, businesses and communities and force even more people to flee the state. The Climate Action Council has released a blueprint to alter the state’s energy plans and its timeframe is not only ridiculous, its punitive, discriminatory, harmful and unfair. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuels we currently have and use. Natural gas hookups and services, as well as those from propane and heating oil, are vital for New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off these dependable sources of energy would be costly to residents and businesses and ineffective on a global scale. The climate control studies reducing fossil fuels and stating that they are the cause of global warming among all your other charges have not been proven nor have they been substantiated. There are several legitimate scientists who totally disagree with this theory therefore, your plan should be scraped immediately. Give the scientists the time they need and deserve to do their studies instead of rushing a plan through without informed and accurate information. This is not the end of the world if we don't and it makes no sense whatsoever to jump into this with a foolhardy plan such as you currently have to offer/proposed Scientists say we have enough untapped fossil fuel reserves to last us another 500 years. While it is important that we seek ways to protect our environment and conserve natural resources universally and not unilaterally, there is no immediate danger to the climate and I'm sure with constant research being done they will find a more suitable and productive plan that will. The United State is not the only country in the world. They are many other countries that are polluting the earth many times over what we are, what about them? We should not be made to suffer while other countries do nothing | ||
| Bob,Prosser | First and foremost, your Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan is an unsustainable and unaffordable proposal that will further burden residents, families, businesses and communities and force even more people to flee the state. The Climate Action Council has released a blueprint to alter the state’s energy plans and its timeframe is not only ridiculous, its punitive, discriminatory, harmful and unfair. Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuels we currently have and use. Natural gas hookups and services, as well as those from propane and heating oil, are vital for New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off these dependable sources of energy would be costly to residents and businesses and ineffective on a global scale. The climate control studies reducing fossil fuels and stating that they are the cause of global warming among all your other charges have not been proven nor have they been substantiated. They are several legitimate scientists who totally disagree with this theory therefore, your plan should be stopped immediately. Give the scientists the time they need and deserve to do their studies instead of rushing a plan through without informed and accurate information. This is not the end of the world if we don't and it makes no sense whatsoever to jump into this with a foolhardy plan such as you currently have to offer and have proposed. Scientists say we have enough untapped fossil fuel reserves to last us another 500 years. While it is important that we seek ways to protect our environment and conserve natural resources universally and not unilaterally, there is no immediate danger to the climate and I'm sure with constant research being done they will find a more suitable and productive plan that will. The United State is not the only country in the world. They are many other countries that are polluting the earth many times over what we are, what about them? We should not be the only ones to suffer. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Sally Zelasko |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Jackie Stolfi |
||
| [email protected] | Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Lalonnie Sponeybarger [email protected] 3881 Ellicott Street Salamanca, NY 14779 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
|
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard Emery [email protected] 10313 Route 62 Gowanda, NY 14070 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dale Westfall [email protected] 9797 Leon Rd Cattaraugus, NY 14719 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, AARON DEBOLT [email protected] 1502 old 76 road Berkshire, NY 13736 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Shampoe [email protected] POB 270 Brownville, NY 13615 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Terence kennedy [email protected] 11555 county line Forestville, NY 14062 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Rachel Sheldon [email protected] 2809 Whitaker rd Forestville, NY 14062 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Elizabeth Chun Hye Lee |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Leyana Dessauer |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Leyana Dessauer |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Jonathan Salazar |
||
| Robert,Klas | I feel that the elimination of natural gas and propane and a switch to electricity is not in the best interest of the public. This would be a great burden to all new York residents young and old. Natural gas is a plentiful and inexpensive resource that is clean burning and causes no harm to the environment. This seems to be nothing more than a political ploy by this Democrat party to control the people of the State of NY. What we really should do is concentrate on voting out anyone who is connected to this proposal. The cost to the average citizen will be astronomical and will do nothing for our climate. These Mandates reek of the smell of Communistic control and need to be voted down and eliminated. This State has taxed and mandated us to death and people can not afford these ridiculous regulations. People can not afford to buy Battery operated cars for $50,000, switching over to electric appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating and clothes drying, which our electrical grid can not keep up with as it is. Wake up and get your head out of your rear ends. These Mandates are ridiculous and you will pay a political price for this. | ||
| Michael,Brady | My name is Michael Brady and I live in Kings Park, New York. I am a homeowner and a father, as well as the Co-Chair of the Suffolk County Chapter of the Climate Reality Project, and a climate activist with NY Renews and Long Island Progressive Coalition Climate change is the single largest threat to humanity, and if we continue on as we have, our planet will suffer untold suffering that will be disproportionate felt by the global south and disadvantaged communities in the United States and across the world. Every single issue we face will be dramatically exacerbated as a result of climate change. This is not the world that I want my children and future grandchildren to inherit. Buildings are the largest source of GHG emissions in NY and we must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses to net zero. I support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances. In particular, I support elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e) - as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. In addition to the plan’s proposed prohibitions of fossil-fuel-based equipment and appliances, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need." To permit such use violates the terms and the spirit of the CLCPA. Additionally, funding must be provided to disadvantaged communities and households to offset their costs for this transition. Thank you. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curitiba, Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. This month marks five years that I have owned an EV. It's a great car and I love driving it, especially knowing that I am helping to reduce pollution. I am hoping that many, many more NYers will soon have affordable access to electric transportation. Sincerely, Joanne Corey |
||
| Brady,Fergusson | I am a father and a proud New Yorker who is deeply concerned about climate change. I know that buildings are the largest source of GHG emissions in NY and we must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses to net zero. For some, the costs of heating a home can be crippling in the winter and the lack of air conditioning in the summer can put them in peril. Electrification, in combination with weatherization and other efficiency improvements provides a path to affordable living for those who struggle to maintain acceptable living conditions. For others, it provides a path to more predictable living expenses and a cleaner environment. For all of us, it provides a path to a cleaner and better future. Fossil fuel interests have been spreading misinformation about the Scoping Plan, describing its vision for a fossil fuel-free New York as “unaffordable”, and electric home heating as “unreliable”. I reject these deliberate mischaracterizations and I congratulate the Climate Action Council for successfully mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable. I wholeheartedly support upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating . Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Juan-Pablo Velez |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Jerry Rivers |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Donna Kostrzewski 29 Silent Meadow Ln Orchard Park, NY 14127 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Robert Kolodny |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Thomas Kowalsick 1520 Main Rd Laurel, NY 11948 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Edward Kropp 44 S Main St Avoca, NY 14809 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Bridge Rauch |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Bridge Rauch |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As a New York resident and business owner, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my business but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my business, my employees’ livelihoods, and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. The plan does not consider the $20,000 to $50,000 it will cost consumers to electrify their homes, nor does it consider direct cost, opportunity cost, or return on investment. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. Additionally, the risk of economic leakage is very real. Right now, the cost of the CLCPA will be a massive job loss. New York should reach these state goals by using assets and infrastructure that already exist as well as an “all of the above” approach, which includes natural gas, renewable natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and emerging technologies, rather than taking fuels away. Natural Gas delivers over four times more energy during peak demand than electricity, and natural gas is storm resistant, allowing for 99.9% reliability in storm events. I ask you to please strongly consider an alternative proposal that strives to give consumers options. Competition is imperative to protect consumers while driving innovation, ingenuity, and progress. Please contact me or Karen Arpino ([email protected]) with the Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, our trade association, if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Sue Ann Biondo |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, DAVID Sunderwirth 1541 Elk Creek Rd Delhi, NY 13753 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. My name is Geraldine Minerd and I live in Rochester, New York, 14610. I'm a mother, grandmother, and a retired teacher. I'm deeply concerned about climate change. While I care about all of humanity, what seems to terrify me the most is the impact our damaged climate will have on the lives of my three young adult grandsons. Thus, I spend much of my time addressing this issue. The NY Draft Scoping Plan is wide and deep in it's coverage. I've read in the plan that "buildings" are one of the main causes of putting carbon into our air. The Scoping Plan addresses the issues with the buildings in comprehensive detail.....with solutions that eliminate natural gas, while keeping reliability and affordability. I urge you to give priority to addressing this topic of BUILDINGS! Let's leave our kids and grandkids a livable world!! Sincerely, Geraldine Minerd |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Hannah Brodsky |
||
| Blake,Granados | American Pipeline Contractors Association | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Nora Brown |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Harold lacross 121 Tannery Hill Rd Porter Corners, NY 12859 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Philip Bender |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Cheryl Kennedy 990 Ridgeway Ave Rochester, NY 14615 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Lenore Greenberg |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Wayne Warriner 5675 Marshall Rd Avon, NY 14414 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, Kristen Heldmann |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Melissa Moschitto |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Marsha Costa |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Draft Scoping Plan Comments Climate Action Council, I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. These draft recommendations will result in reduced business investment, fewer jobs, greater flight out of state, and higher consumer energy costs. This is especially concerning since New York is growing much slower than the nation as a whole. Finally, New York accounts for less than half a percent of global carbon emissions. Even if the plans successfully reduce New York’s carbon emissions, the impact on global climate will be negligible, but the cost and disruption to New Yorkers will be great. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Regards, Grace Hallock 750 Co Rd 64 Shushan, NY 12873 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risks, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, James Ralston, P.E. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Rachel Landsberg |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As a New York resident and business owner, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the New York Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan will have a significant impact on New York residences and businesses, including the elimination of energy choice and a likely increase in overall energy costs. Mandating that building codes will ban fossil fuel heat and hot water appliances in new residential construction by 2024 is a threat to not only my business but to the availability of cheap reliable energy for millions of New Yorkers. While I strongly support climate action and climate justice, this proposal jeopardizes my business, my employees’ livelihoods, and consumers’ ability to choose affordable, reliable heating options. I support a clean environment, but we cannot jeopardize reliability and safety or act hastily. The State should not be able to impose undue cost burdens on consumers, residents, and business policy, especially since an in-depth cost analysis of the objectives outlined in this plan has not been done. The plan does not consider the $20,000 to $50,000 it will cost consumers to electrify their homes, nor does it consider direct cost, opportunity cost, or return on investment. Most businesses will feel multiple impacts from this plan which emphasizes incentives rather than mandates to avoid emissions and economic leakage. We are already seeing the cost of electricity rise. Expensive and unreliable power will disproportionately affect elderly and lower-income New Yorkers. Cold and powerless days during winter will be dangerous to New York’s most vulnerable populations without a reliable heating source. Additionally, the risk of economic leakage is very real. Right now, the cost of the CLCPA will be a massive job loss. New York should reach these state goals by using assets and infrastructure that already exist as well as an “all of the above” approach, which includes natural gas, renewable natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and emerging technologies, rather than taking fuels away. Natural Gas delivers over four times more energy during peak demand than electricity, and natural gas is storm resistant, allowing for 99.9% reliability in storm events. I ask you to please strongly consider an alternative proposal that strives to give consumers options. Competition is imperative to protect consumers while driving innovation, ingenuity, and progress. Please contact me or Karen Arpino ([email protected]) with the Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, our trade association, if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Judy Jaynes |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to every household - Public education to combat the power of the investor-owned utilities and the opaqueness of the energy system - Clawback provisions around public subsidies to private landlords as an anti-displacement strategy to mitigate rent increases and evictions The failure to include these recommendations in the final scoping plan will leave low- to moderate-income households and DACs vulnerable to extractive financial forces and for-profit solution providers. Sincerely, James Ralston, P.E. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Transportation Sector are included in the final draft: Emphasizing the points of the Climate Justice Working Group, this chapter needs to deemphasize vehicle electrification that fails to address single occupancy vehicle issues that are tied to systemic racism and poverty. To date, electric vehicles have a higher purchase price but lower energy and operating costs. Finance needs to be available to cover the FULL cost of new and second-hand electric cars, especially to those to whom it has been historically denied. Public access to electrified, expanded, and improved intercity rail transportation will improve area coverage and create many good unionized jobs. High rail transport (HSR) is also a practical alternative to energy-intensive intercity air travel for distances up to a few hundred miles while connecting regions of the state with more frequent deployment times with decreased cost of travel. Before 2030, the creation and completion of a detailed cost-benefit study comparing HSR and very high-speed rail (VHSR) technology assessment for a line from Buffalo to Montauk with an Albany to Montreal branch should be a priority action, taking into account total life cycle costs, including external social and environmental costs and benefits. Towards public fleets, the adoption of an express bus system modeled after Curbita Brazil, the most heavily used low-cost transit system in the world, offers a solution to access and low emission/energy efficiency issues in areas with insufficient density to support local trains or light rails. Investment strategies must be made to significantly influence where economic growth ensues, at what rate that growth occurs, and the design and density of the built environment. Enforcing accountability measures and goals to guide how benefits/investments will be defined, measured, tracked, and shared must be considered. Likewise, large financial incentives to capture refrigerant gasses such as hydrofluorocarbon from cooling systems would prevent the release of super-pollutants at the end of a product's useful life. The chapter needs clearer explanations of existing language and must be provided so there is as much transparency around policy programs incentives etc as possible. Purchase of zero-emissions vehicles and/or “fee-bates,” for example, offers individuals and families opportunities to purchase clean energy vehicles and shift purchasing habits and make more sustainable choices. However, the language needs to be presented in a way that explains what this policy actually is, and the ideal—as well as the less than ideal—implications. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH As Secretary-General Guterres said, the climate crisis is a “code red for humanity.” Statewide, the transportation sector produces 175.9 million metric tons of emissions. New York state must take the lead in reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero (greenhouse and toxic) and below as fast as possible. Disadvantaged communities continue to take the hit of environmental degradation and poor air health quality. Workers displaced from fossil fuel-dependent jobs should be offered the choice of unionized occupations with training that transition into the clean energy world. Reiterating on points already made, electrifying and improving the convenience of public transportation must be a top priority. Doing so will reduce emissions, thereby decreasing public health risk via the development of physical ailments, while also increasing access to vital services and improving public safety and activity. Sincerely, Chandra Bocci |
||
| Roger,Caiazza | The Climate Action Council should develop criteria for schedule implementation. A collective crossing of fingers that a new technology will maintain existing standards of reliability and affordability is inappropriate. DEC’s decision last year to disapprove two proven interim solutions eliminates reliability options when there is no other commercially proven option available. The Scoping Plan should establish the milestones and conditions that have to be met before any existing technology is dismantled. | ||
| Denise,Gerhard | We need to keep natural gas in addition to other energy sources. It is the most economical and convenient. Our grids cannot handle pure electric energy. You would also put thousands of workers out of work. Many unions do gas work in one way or another. | ||
| Jeanette,Smith | I would like NY to reconsider its position regarding replacing all natural gas appliances with electric appliances for the following reasons: 1) The vast majority of electricity in the US is generated by "dirty" fossil fuels, such as coal. By using more electricity and less natural gas, you'll move climate change in the wrong direction, away from clean-burning natural gas, and toward harmful coal. 2) Cooking on an electric stove is dangerous, leading to burned hands and foods and the wasting of energy. When an electric stove is turned on, there is substantial waste of energy waiting for the burner to heat up. Then it is too hot and food burns or boils over, forcing people to touch hot cookware to physically move it because turning off the burner does nothing. The only alternative is to have multiple burners turned on at once at different temperatures so you can move your cookware from burner to burner to have the needed heat levels available. Since electric burners are still very hot for a long time after being turned off, they can burn hands or other materials that touch the still-hot burner that's "off". In direct contrast to all of the above, when you turn on a natural gas burner, it's immediately at the desired temperature and thus cooking can begin immediately (no waste). The flame is easily adjusted to low/med/high and the temperature change is immediate. If something is about to boil over, you can turn off the burner and avoid problems, never needing to touch hot cookware. I know all of the above from years of experience with both electric and gas stoves. 3) Changing from natural gas to electric appliances in existing homes would incur substantial remodeling costs for people that many will not be able to afford. 4) Natural gas appliances are safe and cost-effective when properly installed. If there is a minor gas problem, it's not going to burn your house down, whereas problems with high wattage electrical appliances could start serious fires. | ||
| Kirk,Mazurek | Banning the use of wood to heat your home is insane. Wood is economical and a renewable heating resource. Do not ban the use of wood heat. | ||
| Christine,McCabe | I am commenting on taking away residents of NY right to new builds with Natural Gas heating, Gas Stoves in Kitchens, talk of making all residents electric - putting addtional economic strain on Upstate residents. This is a POOR idea. Natural Gas is a very clean energy for heating homes and most homes in the Rochester area where I live have natural gas heating. Electric heating is much more expensive. Our state is sitting on a great natural resource - natural gas. Windmills and solar panels cannot sustain the amount of electricity needed to power our state and they are unsighlty - only placed in places where wealthy New York residents don't have to see them. We are all for helping the environment, however, putting people's lives in peril with the denial of the use of certain energies to achieve your green agenda is unacceptable. Back in the day - people were not denied the use of heating or lighting mechanisms which they were currently using. This is what you are asking of NY residents - denying them the right to heat their homes in the way that their homes were built for. We already have many people leaving NY. This will cause more people to leave our state putting a heavier tax burden on those of us who don't have the means to leave to go to states where these laws are not being proposed. People are struggling now. Do not put laws in place for energy methodology that is technically not ready for mass consumption. I don't want my family freezing to death. Green Energy at this time is for the elite/rich - not for the average person just trying to make ends meet. Do not destroy our state's furture with this legislation. Thank you. | ||
| Mark,Holthouse | I urge you to reject any plan to hike energy costs. The economic cost for the current plan is more then we can stand. The solution is worse than the problem. | ||
| jim,mandolene | mandolene | I truly believe we should consider the impact we have on our earth and take steps to improve on it. By showing that New York cares others may follow. It is essential for this to start somewhere. Cleaner air, water, food, are all things that should matter to us. Benefits of this plan will help all. It may seem painful, but in the end I believe it is something that must be addressed and taken action on. Climate change is most likely in our future but if we can fight it we have to. We know that natural resources won't last forever so we must find and adapt to new sources of energy. Even though I am 72 years young we need to think of the future even though I will not see it. Sincerely, Jim M. | |
| Linda,Clark | It is unimaginable how any lawmaker today would consider imposing any more penalties on the public for using gas, oil, and propane. Due to the ludicrous federal halt on the production of oil and gas in this country, the government has weakened our country and in effect the world is unstable. Ukraine is the first country who is paying for USA weakness and it will not be the last. Because of these policies, the world must rely on Russia, China and Opec countries for their energy. We may see another World War because of this weakness. The USA could be saving the world but instead we are putting the cart before the horse and destroying our energy sources with false claims of new, more efficient energy sources that will not destroy the environment. LIE! Batteries in electric cars are not recyclable, wind turbines are not recyclable, solar panels are not recyclable and there is only about a 15 year life on all of these things. What will become of environment in a very, very short period of time? Nuclear energy is our cleanest source of energy, oil is are most available and with innovative designs, its effect on the environment can be mitigated. Now I understand that NYS is even taking it further by imposing these unfair and damaging penalties on its residents. What are you thinking? I vehemently oppose all of these proposals. | ||
| judy,rizzo | I am 100% against the implementation of this plan. There is no balance in any part of this plan. In my opinion it parallels to the”plan” to replace paper bags with plastic bags. That was considered a necessity for saving the planet. We know where we are now with that plan. This will be another extreme measure with little forethought to the long range cost or consequence. There has to be a balance between the environment and the lives of the people. | ||
| Anne,Smith | Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter | As a New Yorker living in the Catskills and a human living on this planet, I urge you to do everything possible to address the climate emergency as quickly as possible. As the crisis in Ukraine has demonstrated, our dependence on fossil fuels is killing life on earth, and forcing our government to make really bad choices about who to purchase fossil fuels from. The sooner we decarbonize our economy, the less we will be forced to do business with countries who have horrible human rights track records. I take my personal climate responsibilities very seriously, but the state has much more power to affect change than I do. My husband and I live on a hill with excellent solar exposure, but we are unable to install solar panels effectively, because the UV levels in the winter are too low. If the state had a robust array of renewable energy sources and choices, we'd all be better off. I strongly support all the Sierra Club's legislative priorities, including: All Electric Building Act (S.6843-A) for buildings; banning new gas hookups by 2024 Advanced Building Codes, Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards Act (S.7176/A.8143) for building codes and energy efficient electric appliances Clean Futures Act: (S.5939/A.6761-A) Prohibits the development of any new major electric generating facilities that would be powered in whole or in part by any fossil fuel Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit (S.3864/A.7493) and a sales tax exemption (S.642-A/A.8147) to provide credits for geothermal heating units and also bill exemptions from sales taxes for the units. Mandates certain watercraft, aircrafts, and trains to be zero emissions (S.6906), sets timeframes for full electrification and creates monetary incentives to transition to those clean energy vehicles Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act (S.8198/A.9329) Birds and Bees Protection Act S.699-B Thank you for taking these public comments seriously, and for making New York a leader on climate action. | |
| Dieter,Kraemer | SCSF | https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/minnesota-appeals-court-holds-natural-gas-power-plan-more-environmentally-friendly-than-solar-and-wind This is a Minnesota case that you may be interested in reading regarding natural gas, | |
| Gail,Payne | Sierra Club Long Island group | Hi, I am the Energy Chair of Sierra Club Long Island group, a subset of the Atlantic Chapter (NY). I understand the main goals of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy usage, and ensure climate justice. I agree with the I have three key points to make: 1) There must be no new gas for heating or electricity 2) Achieving net-zero carbon emissions is not possible with the continued use of NY's old nuclear power plants. Beyond the carbon cost of mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, formation and transportation of fuel pellets and plant construction, are other carbon emission sources. For example, generators, used regularly during maintenance shutdowns and during power outages, use tens of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels. Monitoring the waste, decommissioning, accident mitigation, building sarcophagus structures and monitoring radiation levels for thousands of years into the future will also release massive amounts of carbon if vehicle including construction vehicles, continue to run on fossil fuels. 3) Climate justice is not possible with the continued use of NY's old nuclear reactors. Reactors are located in poorer communities, where more people of color tend to reside. Daily operations release radioactive emissions which studies in Europe have shown lead to increased rates of breast and childhood cancers. Any nuclear power disaster will poison the local residents more than those further away. In addition, the mining of uranium on Native American lands has a left a long history of misery and illness. We must not contribute to this environmental justice crime. Thank you for your consideration of these comments, Gail Payne | |
| Patrick,Temple | 350 Brooklyn | My name's Patrick Temple, I live in Brooklyn and I'm 32. After seeing the devastation last summer from extreme heat, floods, and fires, I'm incredibly worried about the future of our climate—both for myself, and if I have kids in the near future, for them. If 2021 brings heat waves of 120 degrees to Portland, I shudder to think of what 2030 or 2050 will be like. I want to voice strong support for the plans to upgrade our electrical grid. Given the upcoming increase in renewable supply, and the increases in demand from EV charging and electrified home heating, investments in grid resilience are crucial. I'm also glad to see the investments in energy storage. Some parts of the scoping plan could be made stronger. We need a commitment to stop building new fossil fuel plants now—not just a gradual phase out over time. We also need to make sure that the impacts on Disadvantaged Communities are made central to all planning around fossil fuel closures, given the significant health impacts that the plants have on those communities. Finally, we can strengthen the programs that encourage growth of solar. Most importantly, we must make sure that small building owners who own solar are paid for its contribution to the grid, in a way that strongly incentivizes the growth of small-scale solar. I'm glad to see NY State leading on climate, and these changes will help give us the strongest possible plan to address the crisis. Thank you! | |
| Anthony ,Gregory | Are you people crazy?? Natural gas is clean and abundant. Climate change caused by man is a hoax it is just a tool to control people even further (socialism).You're using fear and emotion to push people to fall for this it's no wonder NY is losing residents by the thousands every year.In the 70s it was an ice age was coming, then when that lie failed you went warming now that failed so now we'll call climate change what's next? If you really truly legitimately cared about the environment you be all in for the cleanest least invasive form of energy Nuclear yep I said it.Solar and wind just won't do it -not always sunny or windy unless you like brown outs. If you're still reading, which I doubt, you really should read some the works by NIPCC. Thanks allowing me to comment. | ||
| Lisa,Giannico | Marbletown Environmental Conservat ion Commission | I wholeheartedly support this important work and your efforts to implement this timely initiative. Thank you for the work you’ve done and will continue to do. | |
| Richard,Rappaport | How will this plan necesitate home owners to make modifications to their homes? Will those homeowners receive subsidies for the additional cost of electricity vs gas? Will homeowmers recieve subsidies to pay the cost of convering their heating system? | ||
| Linda,Camelio | To the lawmakers of nys I am commenting on each and every topic included in your radical climate action plan. My objection to the whole plan in its entirety is that it is a plan that has will affect negatively life as we know it today in nys and that if implementedwill not do squat about climate change for New Yorkers or the world Historically, climate change occurs NO MATTER WHAT approximately every ten thousand years. Do your homework Since according to your plan natural gas will be outlawed what will replace it to provide heat and light? Surely not solar or wind to the extent of the amount needed. Costwill be prohibitive! You are thinking only of your demented ideology worshipping a climate change agenda and not working for the people of New York Third world existence is where New Yorkers will be with lack of amenities and ability to live affordable and comfortably. All because of a plan which was developed ignorantly and because of devotion and worship to a climate change agenda Foolish and ignorant Where are your facts Where are the costs enumerated Where are your factual historical perspectives Linda Camelio | ||
| Brenda,Malarkey | 1) Eliminate 2% gross receipts tax and remove the underlying 18-A assessment on Utility bills 2) suspend the state's gas tax 3) reject the proposed carbon tax 4) no new tax or fee increases in this year's state budget We want to reject the hike to energy costs! | ||
| Rachel,Karpilovsky | So let me get this straight.. we are barely out of a pandemic and then we crank up the need to eliminate fossil fuels after people suffered financially due to the pandemic ? We were barely ready when the pandemic hit and because president biden wanted to shut down keystone pipeline the first day in office , we all have to shell out cash and pay for solar panels, electric vehicles and move towards eliminating gas all Together ? I am part of the working “middle class” and don’t qualify for 90% of your --programs and didn’t qualify for a lot of the first time Homeowner programs when I financed my house in 2019.. thank god I purchased when I did.. what you are doing is downright wrong and if you Are going to push something as insane as this so quickly you better make it more accessible For the working middle class to pay their bills without going into debt.. to invest in this crap which has proven to have its defects is astronomical and not in my current budget to survive on Long Island . | ||
| Mark,Edinger | ARE YOU PEOPLE COMPLETELY NUTS? Do you want to chase the last residents and tax dollars from NY? Please put someone on this committee with "half a brain" to bring some sense to this study. | ||
| Natalie,Duncan | While the State is focused on Low-Carbon Procurement through Environmental Product Declarations for materials it purchases, it is not the only way to help the State ensure that it is lowering its embodied carbon through Procurement processes. The State could ask all suppliers to the State to track and report their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). This has been proposed in a number of different areas, including other States and in a Federal Executive Order. For an example, please look at the Federal Sustainability Plan, Section 4 Net-Zero Emissions Procurement, E. The Net-Zero Procurement Plan, iii. Plan Elements: “Require major Federal suppliers to publicly disclose GHG emissions and climate risks, and set science-based targets to reduce emissions.” GHG inventory work is something that many suppliers have started to do and many are working on ‘hot-spotting’ to find areas to reduce their GHG emissions in Scope 1, 2, and even 3. WAP Sustainability has worked with numerous organizations to help them understand their GHG emissions and account for them and reduce them over time. We would gladly work with the State and its agencies on understanding the marketplace for what is referred to in the proposed Plan as ‘low-carbon products’. | ||
| Natalie,Duncan | In section I2, the Components of the Strategy for Low-Carbon Procurement focus only on ‘…carbon intense building materials…’. While this is a good place to start as numerous other authorities having jurisdiction have done a great deal of research in this area and even started procurement based upon that work, to only focus on building materials is not taking a complete Plan to utilizing the procurement function to lower the State’s carbon. Many other sectors are starting to look at, understand and even reduce their carbon, such as electronics, infrastructure components, vehicles, and furnishings. The Low-Carbon Procurement should expand its scope beyond simply building materials that the State purchases and open it up to many other products. WAP Sustainability has worked with numerous industries inside and outside of the building sector and would gladly work with the State and its agencies on understanding the marketplace for what is referred to in the proposed Plan as ‘low-carbon products’. | ||
| Natalie,Duncan | The directives and actions that the State of New York has undertaken has led to an incredible list of accomplishments which should be applauded. As this Scoping Plan lays out, the next step is going to take a state-wide effort. In that vein, there is one concept that is only in a piece of this Plan which could be utilized throughout, and it will not cost the state any more funds or time then they are currently utilizing. It is embodied carbon-based procurement. In Chapter 12 B10 it is laid out how the state ‘…should establish procurement requirements and design specifications for State-funded projects….’. Because of this section’s focus, this information is focused on design specifications and procurement for buildings which are State funded, but why only buildings? While building materials can be a significant source of embodied carbon, they are not the only source in products that the State purchases. Many States and the US Federal government are looking to utilize embodied-carbon procurement in areas such as electronics, infrastructure components, and furnishings. As is laid out in Chapter 14.2 Section I2, “The exact method of supporting procurement of low-carbon products should be established through coordinated efforts of expert government stakeholders, with the interagency GreenNY initiative, including NYSERDA, DEC, and other State agencies, leading the effort.” But this should not only focus on the building materials that the State purchases. WAP Sustainability has worked with numerous industries inside and outside of the building sector and would gladly work with the State and its agencies on understanding the marketplace for what is referred to in the proposed Plan as ‘low-carbon products’. | ||
| James,Columbus | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. Yet another reason to leave the state of New York | ||
| Maria,Smith | I have not read your full report but have closely read and followed accurate comments and commentary about the proposals, which do not in any way benefit the residents of upstate New York. I am absolutely opposed to all components of this proposal. | ||
| Jeffery,George | I live in a rural part of New York State, there is no public transportation where I live. I haul a 8000 lb camper to vacation with my family. A EV truck will not effectively transport my camper to the Adirondacks. The all electric new homes will put small appliance stores out of business therefore putting people out of work, this will lead to a great deal of the population leaving New York State . This proposed legislation has cemented my decision to move to Tennessee when I retire. Thank you New York State government! | ||
| Robert,Andrews | I am 100% apposed to this plan. If this is established in New York, I will leave this state. Permanently! | ||
| Ed,Wentworth | The cost alone to switch my houses and business from gas to electric would be at a great cost. The cost to add charging ports to charge vehicles would also be at a great cost. Where and how would all of this extra electric needed be produced and at what costs for construction? How would upstate winter snow removal be done with electric vehicles? Are you going to stop imports from countries that pollute with their manufacturing practices at the same time? Global warming may or may not be man made since the magnetic poles have been shifting, solar flares cause climate change and core drilling at north pole have shown that at one time tropical plants grew there. The glaciers that formed the Great Lakes also melted because of climate change. | ||
| Cheryl,lyon | I believe this proposed plan will be ultimate destruction for New York State. We need to compete on a global market for manufacturing, production jobs that used to be so plentiful in this state. We need to attract businesses here to New York by lowering emissions standards even slightly to make businesses easier to operate in our state and for lower costs therefore increasing overall profits and providing more jobs. Climate change is not because of emissions that are in fact lower now than they were a century ago with coal as a primary source of fuel for homes and business across the globe. We have enough emissions regulations without a new level of monitoring and government. Electric is NOT the way. We already suffer in the cold months from power outages leading to freezing cold temperatures. Businesses and citizens will suffer under this proposed legislature. Climate change will happen regardless of emissions. The poles are shifting; a natural phenomenon that we can NOT control. making us all electric, solar, and wind powered vegans will not change our climate's future. Legislature like this will not only drive out jobs but will drive out tax paying citizens to states that allow more liberty in their choice of energy source. I do not want electric energy only for my home, car, etc. I will continue to burn wood, will continue to use natural gas, propane, oil, petroleum based fuel sources for my car, tractor, tools. The day New York State tells me I can NOT is the day my entire family will move out of New York. What a loss since my children are teachers, I am a health care provider, and my husband is an engineer. We can take our tax dollars to another state with less regulations and much lower taxes. Wake up legislators! I live in a conservative community and our numbers are growing in New York State. WE will remember all of this at election time. Electricity equals control. We do not want to be controlled. We want freedom! | ||
| Wayne,Stringer | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Miles,Hester | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Sean,Renfro | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Perry,Redman | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jerry,Lejune | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Doug,Tise | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Kara,Cilano | we cannot transition overnight into a different system. You cannot make blanket laws that ban things like gas stoves or regular (gas) cars while these things are still in regular use in society! It makes no sense to transition to electric cars when the infrastructure for electricity is not there to support them. Open the keystone pipeline to provide more gas affordably. | ||
| wayne,ditzgerald | How is this being paid for | ||
| Mary Ann,Friday | As a resident of NY I am against the banning of fossil fuels. I am also against mandating the use of electric vehicles and electric appliances/heating sources within a home. I live in an area where the electric goes out for days. I have had to purchase a gas powered stand by generator so that I don’t freeze to death and have hundreds of dollars of spoiled food. My generator also powers my sump pump which runs every 15 minutes. New Yorkers should have the freedom to choose. Those who are pushing this agenda should partake by their choice and not force it on the rest. I know I CANNOT afford an electric vehicle (or any of the in home electric updates). I also know I won’t be able to travel any long distance without it taking a lot more time due to having to charge a vehicle and the time it takes to get a decent charge. NY has lost a lot of good people who love this state but hate its mandates and taxes. Perhaps you could focus on something more beneficial that may actually draw people to NY, not scare them away. | ||
| James,Handley | - Nothing personal, but the NYS legislature misses consequences of their actions. Their attempt to get to zero is going to hurt people. Look at the NYS legislature track record. In Buffalo, shops are selling stickers for $300 and giving gift marijuana to the customer. The new online betting has already driven ordinary people to bankruptcy because of no regulation, warnings to customers left to the wolves. - Driving to zero can not be done fast, otherwise people/industry/businesses can't adapt economically. So tell me, if this is scheduled fast, how much stock do the legislatures' have in the profiting companies? -Case in point, 70% renewal electricity by 2030. That is in 8 years. The legislature either doesn't really mean 70% will be in operation by 2030. It takes 5-6 years for a project to go from concept to actually in operation. There is a significant amount of capacity that needs be built. There is no way it be be accomplished in 8 years. But if the goal meant that the remainder to reach 70% would be in construction, isn't the goal misleading? - By the way, I am a 40 year experienced Professional Engineer. - Government doesn't do work like businesses, because they do not have to earn the money they spend. Businesses would study billion dollar impacts for years. Governments don't do studies nor take their time. They rely on donors/interested parties to provide the cost/benefit scenarios. Who challenges what the benefiting companies give them? - I don't see an economic analysis in the report providing the society cost to reach zero carbon versus the resulting economic benefit for the ensuing years. Nowhere in the report, does it mention after the sacrifice by NYS citizens, how much does that effect the climate, especially if 80% of the world's people do not participate? - Section 2.3, "investments made today... spurring a cleaner, more competitive economy". Not if the rest of the world doesn't follow suite. NYS will have higher priced energy. | ||
| Douglas,Galli | Senator Rath, it is impossible to comment on the complete plan. It is an untenable plan. All this will do will continue to drive people and businesses out of New York. As the father of three adult children who are all married and have given my wife and I four grandchildren it heartbreaking that one family has already moved. It is not the weather. They moved to Indiana. One of our other daughters will be putting their house up for sale and by summer's end will be in South Carolina. These are high achieving individuals. I struggle to understand how the grid will be able to handle all of the electricity needed. Simply making a plan and stating the objective does not get us there. Will we be building more nuclear power plants? Cheap, safe power. How will a heat pump work under 40 degrees. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The business I work in will not be able to retrofit all of our buildings. I want a clean environment. but the manner in which this state is being dragged by zealots is headed for a Texas size disaster. | ||
| Susan,Magnano | I do not wish to see this plan enacted as it currently stands. It is too broad and over-reaching. It must be addressed in small manageable divisions. Totally eliminating the use of fossil fuels should be encouraged, rather than mandated. The efficacy of using alternative energy sources needs further study on the environmental impact they produce as well as the hardships that are incurred by changing fuel sources. Banning the uses of natural gas appliances is totally unacceptable! At this time they are the most energy efficient appliances available to the public . Mandating that new and replacement equipment can not be natural gas appliances would be prohibitive to most of the population. It is not just the cost of the appliance, but also the extra charges for designing and implementing new installation which would be prohibitive to the majority of people. As we see today, the rise of gasoline costs in the last month has significantly affected the financial well being of the population. As a senior citizen living on social security and a pension, I find my budget is stretched to the breaking point from rising costs. I am no longer able to support the local economy with purchases other than the basic necessities and my ablility to fund local charities has almost been eliminated. PLEASE DO NOT ENACT THIS PLAN! | ||
| Erin ,Durkin | Yes please! | ||
| Brenda,Sisson | This plan does not seem well thought out. Do not force individuals to get electric cars, stoves or furnaces. Electric can be unreliable in rural areas (literally we could freeze to death without our gas or wood stove during a power outage). Also, charging a gas tax is ridiculous, we are over taxed and over regulated in NY already. Continue to encourage people to make green choices, but do not force these ones. Also, what happens to all those electric batteries? Everything creates waste and pollution. Less packaging, better mileage vehicles, and efficient appliances is a way better plan than zero emissions and forcing people to change everything they own to electric. Are we going to throw away all the gas items? What about that waste? No, just no to this plan. | ||
| Mary,Delzer | I would like to express my opposition to the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. This plan will directly impact the families in Western NY in a very negative way. Hard working western New Yorkers are struggling to make ends meet due to inflation and government mandates. This plan is targeting families who use natural gas to heat their homes. I say no to gas a appliance ban. I can only imagine how costly it would be to for residents to replace their entire hearing and cooling systems and appliances. I am totally against decommissioning of the gas systems. Hospitals need to have two sources of energy and this plan would interfere with that. | ||
| Gerald,Peer | |||
| Lohrie,MacDonald | I am all for renewable energy and am thrilled that our state accounts for just 0.4% of global carbon emissions. I am not happy about the CAC provisions and blueprint. It seems to me that NYS is always trying to make itself look good, but never puts any thought as to how their decisions affect the peoples of this state. Those of you making these decisions seem to have no idea how all of us that pay your salaries live. So now within a few short years we will be unable to obtain anything requiring the use of gas. We are sitting on an enormous field of gas but seems we would rather buy from international areas. As a retiree, I am not going to be able to use or replace gas appliances, heat, water heating etc. But as always, it only hurts us small folk. Who is going to pay for my solar or geothermal heating. I could go on an on. I have lived here all of my life but have wanted to leave for the past several years. I have been taxed to death by this state so am unable to leave. People look at our house and won't buy due to the prices and taxes here. Guess I am stuck with your thoughtless laws and inability to think about anyone but your pockets and the rich. Lohrie MacDonald | ||
| Ruth,Taylor | My limited understanding of this action is that all gas services and wood burning heating will be eliminated and that this will cost the a home owner $35,000 by...(?)... I can't figure out when. This seems unreasonable to me. My husband and I are retired, live in Northern NY, and own our own home. We could NOT afford to make this transition. It might make sense to me if new home/business construction would have to implement these climate goals &/or incentives or grants were made available to homeowners in existing homes. If I wasn't on the mailing list of my representatives, I would have no clue about this. I haven't heard anything about the this action or the public comment period on the news. Last winter, we had to heat part of our home with electricity one of our boiler furnaces was down for repairs. IT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE compared to what we paid for gas heat. We would NOT be able to afford electric heat. We make every effort to be energy efficient. Please do NOT cut our throats and our wallet implementing these climate goals. A Senior Citizen Trying to Survive in Northern NY | ||
| David,MacDonald | How much more efficient do you expect to gain in carbon emissions. The State is only accountable for 0.4% of global emissions. The Climate Leadership and Climate Protection Act is far more harmful for us little people than to the environment. Please review these actions and keep us little people in mind. | ||
| PETER,VOORHEES | This energy plan does not spend enough time figuring out where all this electricity is coming from. The plan assumes the large use of windmills and solar panels, with some kind of storage backup. The issues here for one, needing to generate massive amounts of excess power, to be able to store it, while using it at the same time. And two, the storage technology, at this massive scale, does not exist. Without these parts of the plan defined by some real data to prove the concept, you have nothing but words. | ||
| Sharon,Orcutt | Regarding the plan to use wind and solar power...I see waste wind turbines along the roadways and never realized that these turbines had to be replaced as often as they did. Unsightly is my first reaction. What about what happened in Texas just last winter...things were not thought out. We have abundant supplies of natural gas and cannot believe these wells are being capped when so many of us rely on this product. The heat is wonderful and I really have not seen electric heat being as efficient. We have many storms that affect our electric supply that I do not feel confident with having to rely solely on electric service. It gets cold in New York! We need to stay warm and safe and know that this will happen. Cost has to be affordable. As far as this whole program, I feel these dates are too close and this whole program has not been researched as thoroughly as it needs to be. Wait and go slower folks for our sake. Look at our dependency on oil/gas....it is abundant in OUR country...we need to utilize our oil and gas resources. Buying outside our country from nations that do not support our freedoms is ludicrous. Think and research first before you act please. | ||
| Michael,Charland | Liebel & Merle Sales, Inc. | Considering the continuing loss of jobs and population in New York state due to reckless spending, high taxes, and over-regulation by our government, the last thing that we need is more spending and regulation for "green" initiatives. | |
| Sharon,Conley | Is there a summary document available for NYS residents? Attempting to read and understand these documents is quite overwhelming, confusing and has not left me with the ability to ask a educated question. A document comparing what we are currently using vs. the replacement technology|equipment etc. Example: Current Post 2030 Fossil fuel vehicle Electric | battery fueled vehicle Ability to own vehicle vs. Must use public transportation Gas furnace at home vs. certain new kind. | ||
| Zac,Bellinger | Syracuse Citizens' Climate Lobby + SU NY Upstate Medical UUP | Please include an economy-wide price on carbon. A grid-only price would serve as a disincentive to electrification, which is an important part of decarbonization. | |
| Rohith,Palli | Although many climate deniers and naysayers will comment on the rise in prices as a negative, I see this as an essential and excellent market-based method for reducing energy use in conjunction with creating renewable, climate-friendly alternatives. They key to this is a just transition- those with the fewest resources should not be expected to shoulder the burden of prices. For example, rises in rates of utilities charged to everyone is unacceptable without proper automatic offsets based on income or other criteria of disadvantage. For example, perhaps energy rates could be set by tax bracket or a refundable tax credit could be made available to lower income brackets to offset increases in energy prices. | ||
| Michael,Abrams | A zero emission status is a laudable goal. The target of 2050 is an impossible target for an 85% reduction. Our current infrastructure is hopelessly outdated and would be unable to be updated to meet the proposed goal. I don't have any idea how many cars are owned by New Yorkers but I'm certain that it is in millions. Each car would need to have a charger which will run approximately $1500. Then you have the cost of the vehicle itself and you have effectively priced many "average" New Yorkers out of the car owning market. Additionally our electrical grid which in many cases is run by coal will need to be upgraded to support all of this required charging increase. The life of the car battery and what will happen with all of these "expired" batteries will be destine to a land fill with all of their toxic components. If this is really going to be the goal we will need to look toward nuclear power plants but nobody wants one in their backyard. Maybe natural gas but no the environmentalists won't permit it because it has some pollutants associated with it. Wind? Only if powered by committees like this. Solar. The technology is not there and the cost / return is untenable for practical use. It is great as a demonstration project but not much more. In short forget about 2050. We will need to wait for the next big technological breakthrough to really make this a reality. | ||
| Charles,Carter | retired architect | So, you want to ban gas burning appliances huh. I suppose that lawn mowers and tractors are a huge danger to society. Have you given any thought to aircraft and ocean-going vessels? What about electric vehicles - where are the charging stations and are they universal? The cost of electric vehicles is beyond the capability of most Americans to afford. Once you own one, what happens when batteries need replacement? Where do they go - into a landfill? We could stop everything gas powered here tomorrow and without worldwide acceptance and compliance you are just blowing hot air. The poor will be hardest hit and least able to co0mply so what happens to them - they are fined? First of all, we do not have the infrastructure in place to make all electric feasible and what method of electric generation do you plan to use - coal fired, hydro-electric, solar, nuclear? Ships may be able to convert but are aircraft? The Democrats are using the ready, fire, aim approach to creating legislation without considering the ramifications of their actions. Think of all the people you will create on unemployment. The ripple effect will be enormous. Back to the drawing board folks. | |
| Alice,Sokolow | Link: Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation GHG from wind and solar energy buildout were not evaluated in 2021 GHG report for NY. IN FACT, GHG WAS NOT CATEGORIZED UNDER ENERGY NOR AGRICULTURE NOR INDUSTRIAL WHY IS IT MISSING? THIS IS A HUGE IMPACT; more than the positive clean renewable value. This is a major missing element that was evaluated for OFFSHORE WIND!! If not evaluated for all new energy, the report is arbitrary and capricious. | ||
| Thomas,Konrad | Hello, I strongly support the plan's goals of reducing carbon emissions, as well as the goal and the expected benefits of reducing emissions from the combustion of wood. However, all of the discussion in the plan about reducing emissions from wood combustion focus on reducing wood combustion, rather than directly on the emissions from wood combustion. Since the level of emissions is extremely dependent on how wood is burned, the focus should be on shifting the combustion of wood to less polluting methods, rather than on reducing the overall quantity of wood combusion. In particular, the plan should focus on reducing and replacing highly pollution wood combustion with efficient wood combustion that produces high value heat. Examples of the most polluting wood combustion include backyard burning, older wood stoves and fireplaces, and the combustion of green or wet wood. Less polluting methods include modern wood stoves and pellet stoves that meet the new EPA (or higher) emissions guidelines, and educating users about the benefits of properly drying wood. Wood heat as a backup to cold climate air source heat pumps (ASHPs) delivers many valuable benefits: It reduced strain on the electric grid when ASHPs are least efficient and overall electric demand in winter is likely to be peaking. It provides resilience to households in rural areas where power outages are infrequent (since ASHP's have too high electicity demad to be supplied by power from generators or batteries for more than a short period of time). Finally, it provides supplemental heat in older and historic homes which have been retrofitted with ASHPs but in which cannot be insulated and air sealed to modern standards due to the nature of their construction. In such homes, ASHPs cannot meet the full heating load on the coldest winter days and nights- but efficient wood combustion still allows us to transition these homes completely off fossil fuels. | ||
| Jason,Cloen | My family is fully in support of NY's Climate Act and any actions that the Climate Action Council takes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | ||
| Carl,malczewski | Vfw7275 | Our electric grid will not be able to handle this,what's wrong with natural gas, it burns clean,who is going to pay for all the upgrades the people have to make in there homes for all this? And more tax on gasoline is insane,I didn't know we live in China being told what we have to have to heat our homes with,and what appliances we have to have in our homes,You politians think that people are just loaded with money to make all these changes,wake up we don't have endless amounts of money. Do you people think if our electric grid goes down what happens just to rely on one power source its foolish. | |
| David,Brennan | NYS needs to utilize a balance of energy sources including fossil fuels, solar, electric and wind. We as citizens cannot afford: a $50-60,000 electric vehicles, the cost to heat our homes and offices only with electric heat, the cost of disposing Lithium batteries and their byproducts, and the list goes on. I like many people am nearing retirement age and will NOT be able to afford the draconian energy changes this legislation proposes. This plan will abolish the freedom to travel affordably and put many of us in a poverty situation. | ||
| Leigh,OBrien | This is a great start; go, New York! A few suggestions: 1. Consider going for a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 -- this seems doable. 2. Increase state requirements for limiting vehicle emissions -- this won't be popular, but it is necessary. 3. In a related vein, we need to provide much more funding for public transportation; if our next-door neighbor Canada can do it, and do it well, so can we! 4. Related to increased funding, the state needs to increase the tax rates for the highest earners. 5. Key points re financing that might help "sell" all the important ideas in the Scoping Plan seem to be (a.) the cost of *inaction* exceeds the cost of *action* + (b.) the costs to take action are a *small* share of NYS's economy! 6. Note also that these changes would positively impact New Yorkers' health! 7. Finally, and related to the foregoing, this Plan needs to be sold using every avenue available...and making sure that the information consistently gets out to all New Yorkers, not just those of us concerned about environmental degradation. | ||
| Michael,Oubre | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Steve,Kirksey | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| James,Schettine | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Lynda,Dunn | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Sondra,McClinton | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. This is my lively hood, how I provide for my family. This country HAS to have natural gas and oil to survive. | ||
| Angel,Lehner | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jeremy,Guretzki | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Bill,Laughlin | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jared,Manuel | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Walter,Ward | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Shari,Hughes | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Garret,Guidry | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Jason,Leger | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Doug,Tise | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Blair,Finstad | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Scott,Graver | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Amy,Clapper | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year and the stress it will cause on those who can least afford the results of higher prices. | ||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Georgia has 3,260.42MW Solar Installed. See Attachment Georgia at 3.73% electricity from Solar NYS at 1.4% Make Comments Pu blic 70% by 2030 is not achievable At 27.4% per NYSERDA No Body Reads this or cares | has attachment |
| Josh,Hinkle | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Roy,Weaver | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Dennis,Boudreau | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| William,M McNease | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Wilson,Shoulders | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Nick,Cradisch | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Melissa,Reyna | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Natural Gas is Key to Powering New York's Future. | ||
| Kathe,Garman | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Lisa,Stansbury | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Austin,Swartz | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Government overreach that is causing prices to escalate needs to stop. | ||
| Gary,Keith | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Michael,Castle III | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Marlon,Guretzki | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Mike,Pirkle | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Orville,Stephens | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Steven,Bryan | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Joshua,Eanes | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| William,Aston | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. We need action on functioning affordable Nuclear or Geothermal power plants in place before any reduction of fossil fuel power can take place. we can not stay competitive in the global economy with any other green Energy sources at this time. | ||
| Ebony-Jayne,Lynch | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| William,Schettine | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Michael,Jones | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Robert,Lynn | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| J.J,Connor | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Stephen,Torres | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. As a former resident of New York, I take a number of quality-of-living factors into consideration as I look for my next potential state of residence. A state that moves in the direction away from using the USA's safe, clean, plentiful, domestic resources and away from the ability to provide security to is residents is not a state that I'd consider calling home. | ||
| Scott,Sisson | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Taylor,Dacus | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Bobby,Hoover | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Mona,Rudolph | What a stupid idea to create another government agency to pay. Changing to solar or wind energy is a myth because there is no recovery of materials used to produce or way to recycle solar panels or wind turbines. Electric cars are a farce. You cannot produce enough electric to run a car in nys because we don't have enough sun! I got roped into solar panels for my house and I pay more for electric per month than before I had them!! Besides this scare about climate change is a myth. We already have too much government interference in our life. And our poor farmers are being crippled with all the rules and regulations imposed on them. Stop trying to ruin our state and country! | ||
| Robin,Haggerty | This is not good plan. This would be a burden on all New Yorkers this will make things worse for many families. How can we even begin to go down this path in this timeline? Its just unsustainable costly that places burdens on families, and irresponsible in this timeframe beginning in just 2 years. We should continue to have many sources of energy that families can choose from. Look at the evidence the State of CA has with renewable energy. Continuous brownouts. Upstate NY weather specifically winters are harsh. No gasoline now who can afford to replace and buy electric cars . NOTE the main component is made in China for-the batteries .we need Keep mining our own natural resources again make us energy independent again. We have clean beautiful natural gas and that option should always remain and never taken away for families who currently have this option as well as other families that have propane gas. Yes we all care about the environment but the people that propose these timelines and plans, really need to use their heads common sense think things through using all scenarios and always ask the next question- What if ? The sad thing is many older people don’t use computers so they can’t go online to voice their concerns. Many can’t afford the paper that says go online to voice your concern. That means they don’t know about this draft plan so their voices are not even considered. So my thought is no one asked or thought through the next question What if elderly do not use computers or get the paper How will we get their voices heard. One last comment if you care so much about the environment think about what the windmills are doing to the environment landscape in connection with destroying wildlife. Not good! Please reconsider this plan or you will be losing more New Yorkers to other states. | ||
| Aliza,Morell | The Scoping Plan recognizes the need for improving our electrical transmission and distribution system. Upgrading our electricity transmission and distribution system to allow for the maximum use of renewable energy sources is crucial to this transformation in our electricity system. The Draft Scoping Plan acknowledges this (p 155). Indeed, flexibility and reliability should be key considerations. | ||
| Aliza,Morell | Mandate that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation (p. 161) but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. | ||
| Concezio,Cercone | Please have the people who sponsored the bill submit proof of what effect the area of space we (the Earth) are moving into has on our climate. Secondly, why is it that the beliefs of a few wealth and educated people are allowed to force everyone to believe that what they believe is the only thing that is right and that the beliefs of other (the majority) does not matter? Also please explain why their willingness to have people suffer is a good idea? I would recommend that the following a provision be added to this bill "no member of the legislature and their family members can invest or make any money from any business or industry that benefits from this law." | ||
| Dixie ,Pflugler | Do you folks actually speak with your constituents?. Do you understand that most people can’t afford the changes that you’re proposing. In the time frame that you’re proposing these are ridiculous and I think you all know they’re ridiculous but nobody wants to be the voice of reason. It took 25 years for people to start getting on board with solar for their homes. The reason was it was too costly. Now that the cost has become more affordable people are more willing to try it. Why would you think people are gonna run out and buy an electric car in three years or stop using oil to heat their homes or gas for their cars? Start being more pragmatic and stop being so dramatic and acting like the end is near if this isn’t done immediately within several years. That’s hogwash. We’ve got time to implement all these new green ideas in a timely manner that doesn’t feel like it’s being rammed down our throats especially in a way that is not affordable for most people or disliked. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Remember that the next time you want to start pushing an agenda that gets a lot of negative feedback. | ||
| Marydaniel,Cooper | In soliciting comments, you are hoping to further understand relevant needs and priorities of members of the public and how they connect to existing (or additional) climate strategies. I have been a resident of NY State since 1980. To me, climate change is the issue of our lifetime, and the legacy we will leave to our children. It is hugely important to me to have NY State take action to mitigate changes in the climate. I am a retiree and I want the Independent Power Producers of New York to know that many, many New Yorkers are willing to pay more for electricity. Why? We need to lower greenhouse gas emissions, we need to stop plundering the earth’s resources, and we are willing to make sacrifices for the many health benefits. | ||
| Jeremy,Bartholomew | We are a small scale 100% sustainable off grid homestead in northern NY. We built our dream of this off grid homestead with great thoughts and intentions. We do not even have power available to connect to if we wanted but we don’t want to. We heat our home from our land with 100% renewable resource (out woods). We are way beyond carbon neutral. I built my own electric bike to ride to work. We understand the importance but a ban on woodstoves in NY is not an option. The price of heating any other way is not feasible. We invested in our solar system with a battery bank to keep our farm up and running. We would invite you to Come see real climate change in action. We are a family of 5 and typically use 6-8 KWh of power on a daily basis. I can prove that at any given time as out system is online. I challenge anyone on the climate action council to use even match our power consumption. Please do not consider wood stoves the enemy or we will leave NYS and start again. | ||
| Tim,Myers | I would look to see how this transition to electric Snow Plows during the winter would do. I would like to see how electric construction vehicles will work. Electric earth movers and electric Cement trucks as well as electric steam rollers on our roads BEFORE I will invest $70K plus in an electric truck for my personal use. The transition to electric vehicles needs more of a buy in from the citizens and I cannot see that happening. This is just more of an incentive to leave this mess of a State behind and move to a more sane State. | ||
| Pamela ,Hamarowicz | I am completely against the proposed legislation. While I agree that decreasing our carbon footprint and developing "greener" energy, I feel that the way to do this is through incentivizing private industry to develop cost effective alternatives rather than pass laws that will have a tremendous impact on people who are not able to afford the changes mandated by law. It would not be possible with today's technology to provide enough electricity through wind, solar, and hydroelectric means to satisfy the needs of our society, yet I see no mention of using nuclear power. Passing legislation that makes laws that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the average citizen to comply with is unconscionable. | ||
| Sharon,Riznyk | Unfortunately, this Climate Action Act is the most ridiculous plan I have ever heard of. I recently learned of this Act, that was slipped into law in 2019. I guaranty the majority of New York citizens have no idea it exists or what it means to them. While I have no issues with looking at alternative fuels, EV's, etc., I do not believe this plan is reasonable or realistic. I've seen time frames in the draft Scoping Plan for this Act for banning new natural gas lines into new and existing buildings starting in 2024. This along with the banning of gas powered appliances such as those used to heat, cook, dry clothes, etc., shortly thereafter. That is ludicrous! Our current infrastructure can barely handle our existing electric load. Transitioning to full electric this quickly will ultimately be a disaster. Also, what happens to natural gas back-up generators??? Once again, good intentions get in the way of planning and structure and realistic time frames. Why not transition by moving slowly and thoughtfully into flex fuel vehicles, etc. The cost to families, businesses, and our economy from the Plan as it is currently drafted is monumental. It is my goal to let as many people know about this Act/Draft Scoping Plan so they can speak up and let their representatives know exactly how they feel about it. It is also my goal and belief that one-party rule in NY will end via upcoming elections so disastrous policies like this are stopped. | ||
| Linda,Shriber | We need affordable gasoline and energy sources that are obtained from the United States of America. We cannot live without providing our own energy, and does NOT include all of the politically correct, out of control nonsense that we are continuously experiencing due to politicians who are pandering to the politically left, and who are quite uniformed about what is happening in our country. We need to stop the nonsense to survive and live. The New York State Climate Act is NOT what NYS voters/citizens want or need. The "Climate Leadership" is uninformed and political. They are not working for the benefit of the citizens of the State. This is just another reason why the state is bleeding people. | ||
| Kathleen,Plete | My concerns with the plan are the following: Many rural areas and residents in NY rely on wood heating for their homes. The small amount of emissions that creates is far outweighed by the economic benefit to residents. A lot of communities have old infrastructure when it comes to electricity or no access to electric and electricity can be out for extended periods of time. I find that representatives from larger urban areas make plans that do not include rural New Yorkers. Our experience and reality is much different from yours. Electric cars are not easily recharged or able to handle the conditions and long distances required. Our electric grid in new york is in serious need of upgrading for this ambitious of a project. I feel it should be a longer time frame. I think this plan should be limited to the major cities in new york for this time frame and then eventually, with much consideration and planning maybe span out into rural areas. There should be grandfather clauses for existing structures and systems. | ||
| Tammy,Brandes | How much is this going to cost us tax payers? How much are my bills going to go up to pay for everything? I don't have spare $ to pay more taxes or electric cars. | ||
| Mark,Scarpena | I personally think this plan is short-sighted and you fail to grasp the larger picture. I feel this will not end well and will cost the citizens of NYS dearly both financially, reliability-wise, and in land. Solar panels are taking land that we need to be food independent and away from the wildlife. What can live in a solar panel field? I also fear this will drive business away because energy will be more costly and less reliable. This is impractical and costly. I also fear what NYC did by requiring an electric transition when you pull a building permit since it would be extremely costly to convert existing houses. | ||
| David,Gaeddert | 14226 | Climate Crisis is now! I'm paying off loan on solar panels, not paying for electricity. Part of my solar project is a 60A, 240V sub panel in my garage. This powers outlets for air compressors and shop vacs now. EV chrgers can go in when needed. I'm doing what I can, let's all get with a plan. | |
| John,Neeley | This is all Leftist nonsense. All I see here are bloviated talking points to appease and appeal to a Leftist climate agenda. I also see an abandonment of rural New York citizenry by a Leftist NYC/Albany patriarchy. It may seem to many policy makers that “real” NY is in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Albany or some toney monied Long Island resort. A great many people reside in other locales in our state and have no current ability or any future prospects of imagining or accessing any of the Green nonsense you politicos have puked out. There is no current large infrastructure to support all the battery powered vehicles you desire. The grid in NY state as such cannot handle all the battery powered vehicles you’ve fever dreamed on our populous. Review the easily accessed statistics relative to NY’s share of agriculture in the USA, then take off your rose colored glasses and ascertain if you want to stab agribusiness in the jugular with your Leftist agenda. Do whatever nonsense you want in Albany and south and east of Kingston and leave the rest of the state alone and unfettered by your globalist/UN/Green orthodoxy. Think longer and harder on nuclear. That is our salvation. It is safe and clean and along with more accessible hydroelectric and wind will more than provide power for all of NY. | ||
| Maryellen,Schutz | If I am unable to replace my gas stove I will be unable to use the stove during a power outage as an electric stove draws too much electricity for a generator. There are many others with a generator. | ||
| Anthony,Pettinelli | I don't buy it! PERIOD. Our electrical grid won't handle it, costs are already out of sight for electricity. National Grid says they are at a very low per Kwh but stick it in our back sides with DELIVERY fees that will certainly rise as the New York State commissions allow them to raise such fees. This is a recipe for financial devastation in upstate and rural NY. Stop the left wing rhetoric and "feel good" band wagon and do NOT implement this horrendously disastrous policy. Electricity is still being produced with CARBON FUELS. EV charging stations are sometimes powered by diesel generators. Agriculture, railroads, trucking and the heating needs of NYS residents can do without fossil fuels. Heating a new home, no matter how well insulated, in upstate NY will triple or quadruple in cost. It has been shown time and time again that electric heat is the most inefficient and costly source of heat we have. NOTHING we do can stop what is going on with nature. One single volcanic eruption can and does wipe out 50 years plus of reductions world wide. | ||
| Elizabeth,Giles | Citizens for Regional Transit | I am so much concerned about climate change that I gave up driving a car in favor of public transportation 14 years ago. However, I am scared by the idea of giving up natural gas stoves - which contribute very little to carbon emissions as it is. I'm thinking of Texas, where there was an electrical power outage and people froze to death in their homes because everything (heat, appliances, hot water) was electric. At least if you have a gas stove, you can still cook and heat the kitchen in the event of an electrical power outage. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/dont-need-ditch-your-gas-stove-yet/ | |
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: A weakness in the Draft Scoping Plan that I ask that you rectify is your comments about rates paid to small producers of excess solar energy. The Scoping Plan should recommend strongly that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation (p. 161) but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Hello, The Draft Scoping plan must strengthen the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants.Currently, the Scoping Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plans over time but it needs a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants (p. 155) World events, fluctuating fossil fuel prices, and pressure from fossil fuel interests will seek to undermine any stand that might be perceived as hesitant or ambiguous. And fossil fuel interests can use political donations to sway elected officials. As a group specifically enjoined to pursue the public good for New Yorkers, your steadfastness in this issue is critical to ensuring that the mandates of the CLCPA are realized. And they can't be if we build more fossil fuel infrastructure. I can foresee cases where a power plant owner says that the plant must be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability. The Draft Scoping Plan should make it very clear that the cost of such retrofitting will never fall on ratepayers when that plant is eventually closed. Power plant owners should be clear that if the plant becomes a stranded asset, the economic loss is theirs and theirs alone. In sum, strengthen the recommendation that fossil fueled generating plants be phased out over time by adding a recommendation that there be a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Climate Action Council Members: As you all know, the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Plan (CLCPA) says that 70% of electricity used in New York State will be from renewable sources by 2030, and that we will have a 100% carbon-free electricity system by 2040. As you also know, some of these renewables, such as solar and wind, are intermittent sources. Widespread, affordable, and sustained battery storage will be critical to ensuring that electricity is available no matter what the time of day or the weather. The Scoping Plan recognizes the central role of energy storage, and I commend you on that. Please keep sustained attention on that aspect of the energy system . Please be sure that the Draft Scoping Plan continues to recommend investing in energy storage. (p 155) A good recent example of the value of this is that branches of the Brooklyn Public Library have just added battery storage. This not only makes the buildings themselves more resilient, but these libraries will now serve as a source of power for the neighborhood in times of emergency. People will be able to charge their phones at their local library even when electricity is out in a neighborhood. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Mary,Smith | New York State must take a leadership role in ceasing using fossil energy. Renewable energy is our only safeguard for the health and safety of our citizens. We have scientific facts to help us discern the best way to provide essential heating, air conditioning for our homes; clean water and air. Science also tells us about safe food production and distribution to our citizens. I feel strongly that State leadership is obligated to put the safety and welfare of its citizens above all else. | ||
| Rob,Nunya | The planet has been cooling the last 4 years. This doesn't fit into the United nations and ny states Agenda 21. The buzz phrase Global Warming has been fead to us consistently for decades now. Now that the natural cycle is changing and the planet is cooling they had to create a new boogy man. Now they're feeding us a new buzz phrase called climate change. The global warming they said wouldn't stop if we didn't change our ways has contradicted their original projected outcome. Thats just a bump in the road though for them. They can justify their their every inconsistency. The powers that be will continue to convince us that we are a problem and they have the solution, through unrelenting manipulation and propaganda. Try and think of a movie, sitcom, or news feed that doesn't perpetuate these one sided views. We are anything but a one sided nation yet somehow all media seems to be. That should give pause. The United nations will not fund climate scientist that are willing to research anything other than humans being the culprit. Solar minimum-maximum, and volcanoes are just two examples of what's not being researched. That doesn't sound like science to me. It sounds like an agenda. Pre industrial history shows that there have been nine periods where the climate was hotter than it is now. Its been said that the United nations Agenda 21 is designed to regulate private land ownership out of existance and force independent rural people into city's. In citys people are more big government minded because they heavily rely on the government. We are being charged for taxes when we make income, sales taxes when we spend money, taxes for OWNING property, county taxes, town taxes, extra tax for gas, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and on and on. It staggering how little we are allowed to keep. We have been slowly becoming slaves. But theres a one world government who isn't getting the cut they want. In comes global warming fear mongering and a carbon tax. | ||
| Christine,Watkins | DTE Farm Planning | I have 2 comments 1. The vision for agriculture includes the "avoided conversion of farm and forest lands". I am curious how this can happen when agricultural land is the prime siting area for both wind and solar arrays. I am personally aware of a potential project near me that will potentially remove at least 400 acres of active cropland, over which half is prime farmland. How will this impact be addressed on a county and state wide basis? 2. I find it ironic that the push for clean water has created a direct issue with methane emissions from farms. So many regulated farms now have waste storage to allow them to meet water quality regulations, but now are emitting methane as a result. My concern with the push towards anerobic digesters is that many farms use bedding sources that can be problematic for both digesters and cover and flare systems. I work with a number of farms that use sand for bedding. They tend to be hesitant about using another bedding source due to the cow comfort factor. In order to "encourage" these farms to consider both digesters and covers, funding should also be made available to install separation equipment and any other necessary components to process manure for these systems. | |
| Phyllis,Boyd | This whole thing is ridiculous when the government is allowing China to build more coal generating plants, is considering buying oil from the dirtiest producers of oil such as Venezuela or from our adversaries when our country's producer use the cleanest methods. Our climate leaders travel the world in private jets and enjoy their luxury yachts. You are proposing to ban gas stoves. When storms hit and we have power outages, you are adding to the unnecessary hardships. We all live on the same planet. For us to be this extreme, there must be big money involved. | ||
| James,Caflisch | The idiotic plan to decarbonize New York will have catastrophic consequences for all New Yorkers. Eliminating natural gas as a choice for home energy use will increase costs exponentially with no appreciable reduction in CO2 emissions. This flawed policy in the name of climate change will lead to much higher energy costs and limited housing choices as construction costs rise to meet these new mandates. In addition, tax revenues will suffer significantly as natural gas companies producing and distributing natural gas leave the state and local tax revenues will decline precipitously. Business and industry will leave New York and jobs will suffer as a result. Please cancel and defeat this disastrous plan to kill NewYork’s economy and standard of living. | ||
| JEANNE,SULTZ | I can't wait to leave this state | ||
| Donna,Hackett | Pembroke CSD | VERY briefly: Electric School Buses come at an exorbitant cost and have a non-existent implementation plan for trying to justify replacing the Diesel School Buses that our industry went through several rounds of Emissions controls to enable us to breathe off the tailpipe for. But, before we get to the green bus that cost 2.5 times that of our Diesel Buses, has batteries that need replacement every few years at a hefty price (of which we don't have disposal plans for), and don't allow my rural district to go the distances necessary on routes and field trips...there are the infrastructure and training costs as well as unestablished power and parts resources to be found. The "grants and funding opportunities" are nowhere's near equitable or realistic. Hence ANOTHER unfunded mandate and a layer of political ....nonsense ( I am trying to be respectful of this opportunity to speak freely without overstepping your gracious platform to do so) Thank you, Donna Hackett (32 years into our wonderful Pembroke School) | |
| Bruce ,Roberts | We should all work toward the goal of reducing emissions, including you. | ||
| Robert,Pangburn | If I build a new house or remodel my own and natural gas is available I want freedom of choice. Natural gas burns clean. | ||
| sharon,mcwethy | It is vitally important to do 100% within our means to move efficiently to become carbon neutral. NY is bravely taking the lead. I'm proud to be a New Yorker. It is past time to make industries take responsibility for the pollution they are responsible for. Yeah for Styrofoam and plastic bag reform.. We need to go further. This includes methane , plastics and pesticides etc. We Americans are spoiled and are a throw away economy. Our lakes, oceans and water sources are being destroyed. We need to wake up. The average person is not invested in their responsibilities. It takes time to be educated. Therefore it is important for legislators to take the lead and develop regulations to hold industry accountable for their products. I like increasing the bottle recycling return amount, and banning one use plastic bottles. Glass can be recycled. Thank you for this study. | ||
| Cindy,morgan | We need to put our environment first, money second. | ||
| barry,hoffman | none | Has anyone bothered to verify that the "scientific evidence" followed the proper protocols, proper scientific methods and did not modify the data to fit an agendas. during the 80's when i was in college climate researchers did not follow their own protocols to force an agenda to maintain the government grants that they were given, by giving "alarming" data they kept on the government doles, and were insured grants. this was found in direct communications their emails. Yes they could not prove "global warming" so now it is "climate change" as a chemist I know how important it is to do any research correctly, with peer reviews both of the methods and data. if you bother to review anything check CHINA, Russia and India they are putting more carbon dioxide into the global system then any other state. What are you doing about them? it is time that you woke up, the only thing your regulations do is hurt the American economy. we have dropped our emissions to very low amounts, and we keep improving. not due to your micro managing the private sector economy . but respect for the environment. | |
| Dale,Willink | After reading these reports it seems to me NYS has spent a huge amount of time and money trying to exaggerate the facts about our climate. I can remember reading in 1970 similar predictions about the demise of our world by the year 2000 if similar drastic changes did not happen. The reports were wrong then and are are wrong now. This plan will destroy NYS economy and force people to move out faster than they are already. NYS will not change the world with unrealistic mandates that only effect a very insignificant portion of the world population. Please "get real" and spend our time and money reducing taxes and government waste and corruption. I Vote no to financially destroying NYS with these unrealistic ideas Thanks Dale Willink | ||
| Kenneth,Labuskes | Keep up the good work. | ||
| Daniel,Orlando | The first thing that comes to mind when I read your climate proposal is RUN .Leave this state .The leader ship is concerned about there agenda more than the needs of the people of New York .The cost to the tax payer for this program is out of control, hundreds of billions .Your taking away people’s options to heat and power homes and vehicles in the name of climate and because you think it’s the right way to go . Ive seen studies on our climate and the only scientists that make the claim that this is a emergency as well as a major concern are the scientists that are funded by the government .This is another big lie to the people of our state and our country .I am a registered Democrat but I no longer am voting for the extreme democratic liberal party that you have become .I will vote against climate policy’s that don’t not make practical sense for the people of New York . It is my hope for those in government that are pushing this climate agenda not to be re-elected . My focus and goal will be to stop this careless climate agenda and encourage practical decision making in our state.I’m all for cleaner energy and removing careless waste and practices. Less do what makes sense and what we can afford. Let’s bring company’s back to our state and keep people from moving out of our state . Our politicians are out of touch with the people of newyork !!! | ||
| david,caputo | what does decreased wood consumption mean?? that rural people will not be able to use their efficient wood-burning stoves to heat their homes?? ha ha, good luck with enforcing that. and what happens to this plan when it does not even come close to reaching its goals by the projected end points of 2035, 2040, 2050? why wont it reach its goals?? because they are impossible (not just improbable) to meet. wind and solar now only account for 3 or 4% of electric power produced. will you finally accept the only real alternative to your insane ending of so-called fossil fuels?, the alternative being nuclear- its clean and powerful and efficient. | ||
| Lisbeth,Herrle | I had the opportunity to attend a graduate architectural degree program that included green energy & sustainably building design. Prior, I personally experienced the passive solar genius of my circa 1855 home & later survived the 1970’s energy crisis while witnessing N.E. homeowner’s inventive ways to lower home energy costs. There is a VAST KNOWLEDGE BASE in sustainability that goes back to the built vernacular. WE NEED TO BUILD ON THE KNOWN. •PASSIVE Solar & VERNACULAR Design •NEW BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES with reference to biological elements of heating & cooling principles. ***This SHOULD be first line of an energy conservation plan*** I learned wind energy is heavily SUBSIDIZED with a NEGATIVE net gain. Aged wind turbine parts, along with broken solar panels, also create large future WASTE DISPOSAL issues & LANDFILL costs! THINK asbestos. We need an HONEST, educated panel, from diverse sustainable & technological fields, to create an inclusive PLAN. EXAMPLE-Puerto Rico’s last devastating hurricane. It required an ORGANIZED rebuilding PLAN based on island weather & geography. Instead big money was thrown at the problem. The island could have presented a contained LEARNING LAB. Possibly including a central energy/ utility node, protected from the elements, & running length of island. Off this principle node, secondary nodes would provide support while minimizing distance. Add vernacular & new building construction & technology. Macro to micro. Instead Billions of tax dollars were lost to - ? | ||
| Mary,De Spirt | Climate Change is the the biggest threat facing our planet. Our only option is to decarbonize as quickly and completely as possible. New York needs to be a leader and a role model in this effort. The costs to achieve this goal are miniscule compared to the costs of not doing enough. | ||
| William,Friday | I am all for trying to improve our climate but not by eliminating all our natural energy sources without PROVEN and AFFORDABLE replacements. Just arbitrarily banning by 2034 all autos, home appliances, heating systems, etc. that use fossil fuels is totally insane!!! Even if NYS could do this successfully, it would make little to no difference on our carbon footprint unless the rest of the world did the same. | ||
| Kenneth ,Breen | Our Lady of Mercy Parish | Stop the fear mongering. There is no existential climate change threat. Solar output is declining and the increased CO2 in the atmosphere will help stabilize against the devastating winters that will be coming. Stop putting excessive regulation on farmers. They will always try to find the most efficient ways to do their job. Support small modular reactors as the solution for increased electricity needs. These reactors are proven to be fully safe and no problem for the nuclear waste disposal or exposure and are designed to be non-proliferation. | |
| William,Brewer | The Climate Action proposals require unprecedented government interference with private decisions. The assumption of a climate emergency is a political stand, not based on fully accepted science. The utility system in NY State will not be ready for this drastic shift in energy supply to electricity in time to meet any of the goals. All-electric vehicles still do not have the necessary range or flexibility to replace combustion powered vehicles. The infrastructure to support this change does not exist now and would require large investments in charging equipment and utility capacity to develop. The mandatory shift to all-electric buildings will place a severe economic penalty on anyone now using low cost natural gas. This will fall hardest on the people with the least means to pay the extra cost. There will be better ways to replace current natural gas consumption in the future that will not disrupt the current supply system. | ||
| Leslie,Tobia | Now is NOT the time to ban / limit affordable sources of energy. We need to be energy independent. We cannot afford any of the Climate Action Plans to lower emissions to zero. Now is not the time. I support gradually incorporating some of these ideas into fruition while supporting our reliable sources of energy already in use without further taxation. | ||
| John,Moller | In short, I'm hoping actions taken are minimal and gradually implemented over an extended period of time. Any goals of this initiative will cost real dollars to us citizens/taxpayers and limit preferred energy sources. The sky is NOT falling in New York. My family and I will take a "wait n see" approach. I fear dramatic changes resulting from this legislation will push us further, over the edge to leave for a more tax friendly, less interventionist state where we have more money in our pocket and more energy choices on which to spend that money. Please don't test that resolve- there's not really any more fantasyland behavior from Albany we can stand at this point. Thank you | ||
| Susan,Tannehill | retired from teaching | If we had a more robust program in place to build solar and wind energy to scale, the reduction of the flow in oil and other fossil fuels would not be a problem. We should keep our energy sources local (wind and solar abound) and not rely on foreign governments. Build up the infrastructure for electric vehicles, subsidize wind and solar, geothermal and hydroelectric sources for energy. Then, nothing can impede the economy in terms of energy access. Stop using fossil fuels. Our planet is dying and we along with it if we fail to reduce our emissions. | |
| sandye,renz | N?A | Mandate that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation (p. 161) but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. Develop strategies for putting solar on warehouses. The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding warehouses to this recommendation. There are acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses in Brooklyn, and elsewhere in the state as well. What engineering adaptations could be made so they can add solar without threatening the integrity of their roofs? I think about this all the time, especially on the curve of the F train in Gowanus looking at all the flat roofs that could support solar panels. | |
| sandye,renz | N?A | The Scoping Plan recognizes the need for improving our electrical transmission and distribution system. Upgrading our electricity transmission and distribution system to allow for the maximum use of renewable energy sources is crucial to this transformation in our electricity system. considerations. The Scoping Plan recognizes the central role of energy storage. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends investing in energy storage. (p 155) A good recent example of the value of this is that branches of the Brooklyn Public Library have just added battery storage. This not only makes the buildings themselves more resilient, but these libraries will now serve as a source of power for the neighborhood in times of emergency. People will be able to charge their phones at their local library even when electricity is out in a neighborhood. Strengthen the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants.The Scoping Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plans over time but it needs a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants (p. 155) Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, it should be very clear that the cost of such retrofitting will not fall on ratepayers if the plant becomes a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. Ensure that the burdens placed on Disadvantaged Communities by existing fossil fuel plants are central to all planning. The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities should not be considered. | |
| John,Jessen | The citizens of NY can not afford these irresponsible economical burdens based on non-scientific , politicly motivated agenda. Climate models predicting man-made global warming are nothing but junk science. There is no such thing in “consensus” in science. It’s a disaster in the making that will destroy our middle class. Carbon dioxide has been proven in earths history not to have any impact on temperature. Renewable energy has no proven economical history while natural gas being so being plentiful along with nuclear power. | ||
| Ed ,Luongo | Stop the climate change nonsense altogether please! Yea, sure you will. | ||
| Douglas,Ross | A realistic sustainable energy plan needs to include natural gas and nuclear as power options for the grid as well as a slower phase out of ICE vehicles. One only needs to look at Germany, California, and Texas for examples of the pitfalls of transitioning completely to renewable sources of energy too fast. The plan NYS to eliminate the sale of ICE transportation will be detrimental to individuals living in rural areas, in apartment buildings, and for people that travel for work. I am all for moving towards sustainability, but it needs to be done in a sensible manner. | ||
| Megan,Gramza | I believe that the timeline of this plan is too long, and shows laziness on the state of New York. The timeline for all of these events should have a completion date set for 2030. We should subsidize the cost of this plan through various economic penalties that the state can impose on businesses. For example, for a beverage to be sold within the state of New York, we should require it to be made from materials to have at least a $0.05 returnable value. We should ban the sale of any other beverages within the state. This small change would be a greater impact in the state by allowing the homeless, poor to pick up these extra cans and cash them in for money which would make our state and cities cleaner. This economic incentive would also help lower and middle income families to get some money back on everyday purchases. If a big name company like PepsiCo sells a product that is not $0.05 returnable & recyclable then we should ban the sale of it. Same thing for alcoholic beverages as well. If a business wants to sell a beverage in the state then this should be the requirements to do business in the Empire State. This economic incentive would force businesses to look into reusing materials and reduce our overall consumption of these finite resources. If a company does not comply, then fine the company starting at $250K with an additional $5K penalty per instance. I guarantee this monetary punishment will force businesses to become compliant quickly. My proposal is easy and bipartisan. Please add this to the bill. To conclude, speed up the timeline and stop the lazy approach towards saving our environment. Second of all, add some economic incentives and requirements to put our state in a better position. | ||
| Ron,Kacala | New York Taxpayer | Thanks for encouraging me to leave. I believe we do not have the infastracture to accomplish your coustly folly. The only thing you will do is fatten the pockets of your donors. | |
| Dana,Marshall | I highly suggest lawmakers visit the secluded towns that are truly located in Upstate New York. Electric cars are not a viable, logistical solution to the problem. Eliminating fossil fuels in Upstate New York is a devastating blow to every resident who depends on fuel for heating their homes and commuting to work, home and school. You are sincerely out of touch with rural areas in our state and highly suggest living like the locals, rather than sitting on your high horse and dictating what others must do! | ||
| Stephen,Austin | As usual these ideas seem great, but those who bring them forth never look at the whole picture, how to realistically implement them, and how it effects their employers (The tax payers). The US cannot simply turn off fossil fuels in the course of even a decade without hurting lower and middle class citizens. Look at what is happening now. Do you think the lower class can easily afford the cost of gasoline, food, etc. caused by the regime of the liberals? The answer from you is to buy an electric car. With what, they can't afford a used car now if they could find one. My son bought a plug in hybrid and it took 4 months to get it because we outsource electronic chips to our enemy the Chinese, smart. And by buying that hybrid he is supporting the enemies of the US because the Chinese also supply the toxic batteries that will have to be disposed of in a decade. And what will charge all these cars, power from coal and natural gas power plants. But there is not enough of that power currently (think CA rolling black outs), so how is that going to work? You try to shut down production of the cleanest produced oil in the world and then buy dirty oil from our enemies. To me this borders on treason because you are purposely putting the national security of my country in the hands of our enemies. Imagine we cripple this country with these green policies, now tell me how much cleaner is the WORLD when the leading polluters, India and China, have done NOTHING. That will be the difference we see, nothing. Nobody has a problem with trying to go green, but what is going on now is like a 4 year old who throws a tantrum because he wants everything now. Do we need these policies, no. I believe we were gradually doing it ourselves and no one in their right mind believes AOC that the world will be destroyed in what, now only 8 years? Four years since her proclamation and i don't see that we are a quarter of the way to total destruction. Slow down, be patience. | ||
| Bonnie,Crawford | I agree with the plan for carbon neutral | ||
| Mary ,Plesh | While I support the goals of cleaner energy and agree with taking responsibility and action regarding the use of clean energy sources, I feel it is unrealistic and undesirable to completely discontinue the use of natural gas. There are industrial processes that require ignitable fuel. The use of natural gas in small quantities for residential homes, should be a choice that is still available. There needs to be more clean energy sources available that can keep up with demand. I believe the focus should be on transitioning to completely electric vehicles, which is one of the largest aggregate sources of pollution. Trying to enact all-encompassing restrictions, with absolutes, does not seem achievable until more process is made. Focusing on specific sectors seems more achievable. | ||
| Robert,Felber jr. | With the restrictions and regulations this state force’s on its residents is like living under a dictatorship to be honest I would be more free living in Russia you do realize Russia is funding an promoting this climate hoax that you people are falling for you will lose my vote | ||
| STEVEN,SEILHEIMER | This law will destroy the economy of the United States of America. | ||
| Christine,Greiner | Howard Hanna Real Estate | The USA is not the problem when it comes to emissions & pollutants, the problems come from mainly southeast asia. Climate change is not man made. I'm very weary hearing about the whole thing, and the government trying to control every aspect of our lives. | |
| Mark,Libraire | I understand the need to reduce carbon emissions but to just shut off the gas pump is not a very popular choice. I think a more phased approach would serve us better as more people transition to electric vehicles. What I don't understand is why gas prices have risen so much when we import so little. Anyway, I say a slow turning of the gas valve would serve us much better and lead to a much smoother transition to electric. | ||
| Glen,Grant | This is all pure ridiculousness . Getting rid of all fossil fuels is not possible. Just more regs going from the top down . Once again the rich can do it and you and I are left holding the bag. In power generation they will try to put 500 foot windmills everywhere all created from parts from that "green" country China . Also solar panels which dont give squat for power for such a large footprint are also mostly made from parts from China . As far as transportation goes no one can afford an EV nor wants one . Anyone that rents what are you going to do . Require all apartment complexes have to install a charger for every apartment ? What about high population centers where you have row houses and people park in the streets ? Who is going to foot that bill , oh yeah you and me as taxpayers . You can see what they are trying to do , anything that currently runs on gas will be outlawed or gas will be so expensive no one can go anywhere or do anything . That nice boat you have gone . That nice 4 wheeler , gone . That nice $40000 trailer you just bought during the pandemic gone . They want you to stay home and not go anywhere and only go if you have mass transit options . The days of taking road trips to see relatives or go see the country will be gone . These nice EV cars batteries are about as UN-GREEN as you can get with all the strip mining that is used to make these Chinese batteries. Everyone wants to make things efficient but going down this path for something that is not settled in any way shape or form is ridiculous. | ||
| Scott,Gering | New York State Releases Draft Disadvantaged Communities Criteria to Advance Climate Justice?????? So you'll raise the cost of living for those in disadvantaged communities in the name of "climate justice". This is the most pompous garbage I've ever heard. News Flash, we're on the brink of world war 3, gas prices are already through the roof and you want to continue to push your clean energy nonsense. Guess what, the people can't afford it. If they could they'd move out of the cities and then they wouldn't have to worry about the air quality anyhow. This is why I left the state, next will be my business leaving the state. Enough with the justice rhetoric already, people want their hard earned money to stay in their own pockets, period. That would be justice for the people of the State of New York. The US isn't the country polluting the world, you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist in the name of progressivism. Thanks for wasting all my tax dollars. | ||
| Aaron ,Burkhardt | Drop the regulations! No more government interference! | ||
| Linda,Modglin | I don't think zero green house gas emissions is possible, and this state or country is not ready to be sustained by renewable energy, we don't have the infrastructure and the cost is enormous for such a small return. All this money invested in renewable energy just to change the temperature of the earth not even 1 degree hardly seems worth it. I'm all for cleaner air and working towards that goal, but the technology has to be there first. Not developed as we go along. If NYS is the only state pursuing this lofty goal you can be sure business and residents will be moving to more economic friendlier states. If the other states haven't set a date to achieve this goal and burdening their residents with this monstrous cost what is the point? We have enough natural gas to drill for that would make NYS a more profitable state to live in and it would keep our energy costs down. NYS is burdened enough with high welfare costs that make our property taxes very high, inflation costs resulting in higher costs for food and gas and to pursue this climate agenda would further sink this struggling state. Climate change is not at the top of my priority list for things that need to be done to make this a more economic friendlier state to line in. Windmills cant be recycled, EV batteries cant be recycled, coal is needed to produce electricity to charge the cars. So I don't see where this Climate agenda makes sense. | ||
| John,Kearney | As with all “Green” plans, this all sounds great on paper. Who wouldn’t want clean, renewable, inexpensive energy? The problems arise when you try to turn wishes into reality without the technology to do so. The fact is that in our area, we are dependent on fossil fuels and wood for our very existence. Trying to eliminate them without a viable alternative that is not simply wishful thinking is like telling us to stop eating food for nourishment and instead rely on our imagination. You need look no further than Texas last winter to see what happens when you put too much reliance on systems that are weather dependent( wind and solar) without having reliable backup when nature spits in your eye. Continuing to research and develop clean, renewable and abundant “green” energy is an admirable goal, but we’re a long way from there and we need to heat our homes now and for the foreseeable future. | ||
| linda,young | Dear Sir, I 100% DISAGREE with the Scoping Plan as written. Being from upstate NY, it does NOT make any financial or logical sense to stop Gasoline / Wood burning / vehicles or heating choices. Don't you realize how much more energy will be utilized warming vehicles up with electric power VS gasoline- and how much quicker batteries are going to die and be accumulated in landfills?? This plan is NOT the answer. It is poorly written and only benefits the lobbyists for energy and electric, which of course, goes into the politicians pockets. | ||
| James,Golba | I think the oil Industry jumps at any chance to raise prices . Whether it's a small conflict, fire at a refinery, a leaking pipeline or shutdown because of Hurricanes or tornadoes up goes the prices with the excuse of supply and demand. | ||
| Anthony,Drabik | Natural gas must remain as an essential part of America's energy mix. When you factor in energy use & emissions along the full fuel cycle, households with natural gas versus all-electric appliances produce 37% lower greenhouse gas emissions. So the electricty you are proposing to be used to replace natural gas has to be generated from somewhere. That somewhere is NOT RELIABLE. Look at Texas when their state grid froze as they relied on a greater percentage of their power to electric from alternative sources. Much of that state was in a deep freeze without power for 2 weeks as wind mills froze and solar panels were caked in snow and ice. Vast power grids were down. Natural gas is best & not electic for home use. When natural gas is used directly from the place where it is extracted from the ground, to appliances in your home, natural gas achieves 92 percent energy efficiency. Households that use natural gas for heating, cooking and clothes drying save an average of $879 per year compared to homes using electricity for those applications. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced this year that natural gas is 3.4 times more affordable than electricity and significantly more affordable than several other residential energy sources for the same amount of energy delivered. My family, friends & co- workers DO NOT want your proposed Climate Scoping Plan . Its more government OVEREACH. Communist China is our biggest adversary and they built over 300 coal fired power plants last year. They don't give a dam about global climate issues. While America commits economic suicide in the name of climate there are many global foes who wish us harm and financial ruin. They laugh as our nation is imploding from within. Your plan only places our citizens at great risk. New Yorkers are NOT in favor of this NYS Climate Action being proposed on natural gas. Stop the over reach, All you are doing is giving people like me more the reason to leave this state. | ||
| Chip,Walker | I am opposed to the NYS Climate Action Council's efforts to reduce consumer choice by eliminating inexpensive, reliable and clean energy sources such as oil and natural gas. The cost of "green" energy will cause hardship for many New Yorkers, including seniors and the working poor. The current failure of the Democrats' policy in ending America's energy independence has resulted higher costs across the board because of increased transportation expenses borne by transportation providers. Furthermore, the supposed "danger" that fossil fuels pose to the environment is greatly exaggerated by the media and "green energy" proponents. Dire predictions over the past few decades of environmental disaster caused by fossil fuels have all failed to materialize. New York State's headlong rush toward "green energy" will only serve to hamper our ability to compete in the global marketplace and will drive more employers and their employees away to other states. | ||
| Chelsea,Flatley | I just wanted to note that rising energy costs are troubling and putting a serious strain on households, but the shift away from non-renewable energies and toward greener, cleaner sources of energy is something that needed to be done decades ago. Prolonging the usage of non-renewables in favor of reducing energy bills can not be the solution. I know lawmakers have many things to consider but I beg that this isn't one of them. A reduction, even if temporary, in utility costs would obviously be tremendously beneficial to all New Yorkers, but not at the expense of our planet. I hope to see a solution where we continue moving toward clean energy without delay, AND come up with a way to keep household energy bills reasonable. Thank you | ||
| Ray,Volpe | Your msg: double talk. We must stop using fossil fuels ASAP. If rising gas costs help defeat Russia, OK by me! | ||
| Peter,Moldenhauer | People on a fixed income are already financially with the current rate of inflation and following the effects of Covid. Not only would a defective gas appliance need to be replaced, in many cases homes are not equipped to handle an additional load which would also need to be upgraded. If this policy passes in New York State I feel there will me an even faster migration to other states where there is not such pressure for the residents to take on such a rapid/forced policy. | ||
| Celia,Green | -- please make a selection - | We need to develop strategies for putting solar on warehouses. The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding warehouses to this recommendation. There are acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses in Brooklyn, and elsewhere in the state as well. What engineering adaptations could be made so they can add solar without threatening the integrity of their roofs? | |
| Celia,Green | -- please make a selection - | We must mandate that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation (p. 161) but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. | |
| Celia,Green | -- please make a selection - | We need to ensure that the burdens placed on Disadvantaged Communities by existing fossil fuel plants are central to all planning. The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities “should be considered.” (p. 156) The language should be stronger. Communities that are disadvantaged often have multiple sources of significant pollution, not just their local power plant. | |
| Celia,Green | -- please make a selection - | We need to strengthen the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants. The Scoping Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plans over time but it needs a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants (p. 155) Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, it should be very clear that the cost of such retrofitting will not fall on ratepayers if the plant becomes a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. | |
| Steve,Velarde | A net zero emissions plan will only put a greater financial burden on the residents of NYS. As a taxpayer I do not support these plans. | ||
| Connie,Stofko | Yes, we have to take steps now regarding climate change. I'm glad New York State is doing this. | ||
| edward,oh | I support renewable and green energy. We must reduce our reliance on oil and coal. Green is the future. | ||
| Renee,Andreeff | The overall concept needs to be dropped. Considering the costs associated with current economic conditions related to inflation and how expensive electricity is now, this plan will only accelerate the burden on middle and lower class residents. | ||
| Lori,Carnevale | I agree climate emissions should be reduced, but the plan is too far reaching. It will create too much hardship for the middle class. I think we need to still keep gas energy for cars and homes right now because we don’t have any plans in place for power outages or people getting stuck on roads in a storm in their electric cars. | ||
| Courtney,Bauer | I do not at all support the requirement of adding heat pumps to homes. Housing has become unaffordable in this state and wages have not kept pace. Putting more requirements on homeowners only increases this burden. Ultimately the costs will go onto the home buyer because they end up paying for it in the higher listing cost because the seller needed to add a heat pump to sell it. Also why does this mandate take effect with single family homes first? Why not, investor owned properties or businesses? Why do they get off easy and you start by squeezing home owners? | ||
| Nathan,Witkowski | Stop with zero emissions and climate change. This is not an issue to focus on, this is a charade to control the people in New York State, and we are done accepting it! We the people are not interested in pursuing this legislation. Until the largest polluters in the world; China and India, clean up their act, we cannot afford to take on this issue. The USA already leads the world in the reduction of emissions, clean air and water. If you want to lose more New York taxpayers, (than you are already losing in record numbers) then continue to focus on these ridiculous laws that hit NYS taxpayers in the wallet. Unless you want to be replaced, stop with your attempts to control the population of New York state with your made up issues, such as climate change and zero emission propaganda! We have had enough, and we are not interested in pursuing any of the proceeding 24 chapters of climate change initiatives. | ||
| Debra,Struebing | Struebing | I will gladly pay $10 dollars a gallon if it can help the Ukrainian People | |
| Celia,Green | I'm happy to see that the Scoping Plan recognizes the central role of energy storage. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends investing in energy storage. (p 155) A good recent example of the value of this is that branches of the Brooklyn Public Library have just added battery storage. This not only makes the buildings themselves more resilient, but these libraries will now serve as a source of power for the neighborhood in times of emergency. People will be able to charge their phones at their local library even when electricity is out in a neighborhood. Thank you! | ||
| Celia,Green | I'm pleased to see that the Scoping Plan recognizes the need for improving our electrical transmission and distribution system. Upgrading our electricity transmission and distribution system to allow for the maximum use of renewable energy sources is crucial to this transformation in our electricity system. And the Draft Scoping Plan acknowledges this (p 155). Indeed, flexibility and reliability should be key considerations. Thank you! | ||
| Janise,Beguhl | Overall, while reducing harmful emissions & using renewable energy is a good idea, when it adds to the financial burden we already face with rising housing, utility, food and gas prices, it becomes unmanageable and too heavy of a burden on the average citizen & consumer. This is especially true given the war in the Ukrain. Plans need to be phased in more slowly and instead of penalties, there needs to be incentives. I’m already struggling to cover food, housing, and fuel for my vehicle to get to work and medical appointments. Creating and implementing policies that push those costs even higher is ignoring the needs of everyday people trying to make ends meet. There has to be a better way to be environmentally conscious without creating debilitating cost burdens on the people (and small businesses) of NY state. Thanks, Janise | ||
| Mark,Kingsley | The United State and the EU are the only countries that have lowered emissions. China's have been rising the fastest along with India with the rest of the world following suite. It is unfair to keep putting expensive to buy and more importantly expensive to maintain items on the table. Lastly everyone thinks batteries are green. If like for them to see what a strip mine looks like and at what cost to the planet. Just like corn in your gas it only adds to the Emmons to get it in the gas. It's all fake. | ||
| Brian,Beckmann | New nuclear designs by both TerraPower and X-Energy having grants from the department of energy. Able to load follow, enabling pairing with fluctuating renewable energy sources. High temperature gases could be used for industrial applications. If pilot projects are successful these types of reactors seem like a great fit. Ability to change output would possibly reduce need for energy storage to balance generation from renewables. | ||
| William E. ,Howland | Homeowner | The whole concept of all 24 chapters is Daffy....As far as a practical concern, the elimination of Natural Gas in home appliances is essentially a totally unworkable idea, as is the idea of speedily converting all homes to heat pump (electric) heat... Additional Electric vehicle charging loads implemented at a much faster rate than would naturally occur will further exacerbate the problem of unreliable electricity. While there are more than adequate Natural Gas supplies - there are not sufficient electrical supplies due to other BONE-HEADED actions by NY State - as a for instance defacto elimination of all coal-fired power plants.. What New York State does or does not do is going to have NO EFFECT on 'Climate'. Coal Usage for power generation world-wide hit a RECORD in 2021 and will break THAT record in 2022. As JFK stated - "We all live on this SMALL planet. We all breathe the same AIR....".. By the way - I only DRIVE an ELECTRIC car..... But this unworkable proposal is just another scam to make us peons all the more dependent on decisions of you UNWANTED Bureaucrats. | |
| Marcus,Romanowski | Climate justice is a figment of politicians’ imagination. Repeal this ridiculous legislation now or continue to watch your tax base flee this oppressive state. | ||
| Lynn ,Sickler | Our government needs to care about humans today and work towards a better future. Now is what matters both economically and humanitarian as well as keeping our world strong against the socialists in our country and around the world. We need to open all oil and gas domestically to be used here . Buy and support Americans and keep our country independent and strong. I believe our leaders do not care about anything but keeping their green deal the priority at the cost of human lives and our future to be free. They are horrible people and leaders!!! | ||
| Arthur,Smith | self ,citizen | STOP, STOP TAXING US TO DEATH, LOWER OUR TAXES.IF YOU REMOVE MOST OF THE HIGHER TAXES WE PAY, THINGS WOULD BE MORE AFORDABLE , THE GOVERMENT IS SO FAR OUT OF REACH AND REALITY IT IS PATHETIC. YOU THE PEOPLE IN GOVERMENT HAVE GOT TO GET YOUR ACT TOGEATHER AND STOP FIGHTING ABOUT PARTY AND THINK OF US (THE REAL PEOPLE) WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES SUFFERING AT THE GAS PUMPS AND FOOD STORES ,NOT YOU THE POLITICAN (GOVERMENT). STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN;T DO . HAVE THE COURTS DO THIER JOB AND ENFORCE THE LAW ON THE BOOKS NOW. OUR GOVERMENT RIGHT NOW IS A MESS, AND I MEAN MESS. GET YOUR ACT TOGEATHER . WE THE PEOPLE ARE REALLY GETTING TIRED OF THE DOG AND PONY SHOW YOU CALL GOVERMENT JUST ASK YOUR PEOPLE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT | |
| Charles,Barnard | No Name | In order to reduce my cost on heating my house, I recently installed a pot belly stove and a Ben Franklin stove in my house. One stove at each end of my house. I now use Wood and coal to heat my house. I am very happy with my new heating system and saving a lot of money. | |
| Cynthia,Kushner | We need to start being more concerned about the future of our planet opposed to the number of dollars in our pockets. While our corporations keep getting wealthier because of their greed, our earth is becoming dirtier and eventually we will have even more issues due to the horrendous conditions we are imposing on our earth | ||
| Jan,Seaver | We need to slow things down, don't make everything electric. Do you know what would happen if the power grid was brought down, either by failure or an enemy? You won't be able to conduct any sort of commerce, business, food chain transportation, etc. Can you do anything without a computer? Not really. Not even banking. Smarten up people! Don't put all of your eggs in one basket! | ||
| Patty,Jaeger | I approve of any plans that help make us a “greener” state. I fully support these plans. Not putting them in play now could only make it worse later. The government needs to address climate change before it is too late. It is the government’s job to do that. There are other ways the economy can be helped. | ||
| John,Nitterauer | People are leaving NY State so the carbon footprint should be reduced. Keep doing what you are doing and more people will leave and the state will naturally turn greener. | ||
| Stephanie,Zellar | While I fully support efforts to curb global warming, I'm not sure this is the time to be discussing them when we need to start tapping into our natural resources more (at least in the short term) due to the current world crisis w/ Russia. In addition, I would like to state that my area does have solar panel farms and windmills, yet there's never been a reduction in my utility cost. Why should anyone buy into this completely when it doesn't seem to be benefitting consumer's bottom line? Let's face it, we are selfish and live in the now. You have to give something back to ppl for the buy-in. In regards to emissions and converting to electric cars, this should only be an alternative once they figure out how to take care of all the waste that is created by the batteries. While is sounds great in theory, it replaces one problem with another. It isn't the answer for those concerned about the environment. I don't care about NYC and their problems. I also don't think the average person, like myself, can read all of this and get much out of it....I guess that's how politicians get things to pass by muddying it up. | ||
| Matt,Coia | It is essential that we move toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot continue to keep pushing off these transition costs into the future. If we wait too long the cost to our hardworking people will be even worse than it will be with this current plan. Please move forward! | ||
| Eileen,Snyder | I am just sick about the ability of wind energy companies to just come and overtake a town or community with no regard as to the feelings of the people. I do not want a wind mill on my property despite eminent domain. I bought 80 acres to get out of an over populated area and now am being forced to put up with companies who cannot survive without government handouts telling me that they can come on my property to access areas that they feel are suitable for alternate power. | ||
| Mary,Eisenhard | I support all efforts to lower carbon emissions. Government’s overarching goal is to serve and protect the citizens and the current facts are clear that carbonization must be minimized. It must be an aggressive push in the part of government to lower emissions and enhance new developments to replace old systems as we move to the future. We need to work aggressively and quickly to effect the best possible improvements in the shortest time. | ||
| Donald ,Russo | I am extremely frustrated with this administrations idea of shoveling electric cars down our throats. What you have done to the car industry is a crime, basically forcing them to go all electric. There is NO infrastructure in place to handle it nor will there be by the time you have forced the car industry to be ready by. Do I think there is future for electric cars, yes. But not at the pace you are going. The technology isn’t there for long haul vehicles, recreational vehicles either for long distances. Look how people have to sit around now in California waiting to charge their cars. THINK THINK THINK BEFORE you knee jerk into a solution! | ||
| Barry,Martin | We need to cut carbon emissions now to sustain the viability of our planet. There is never a good time to do this, but we cannot afford any excuse from getting in the way of saving our planet. It's like the old proverb, when is the best time to plant a tree. The answer is 30 years ago, and the next best time to plant it is today. We cannot wait any longer to cut these emissions which is choking our planet. | ||
| Patrick,Knoll | While working towards Green clean energy is ideal, we cannot make the switch before having it up and running. We still need to explore, drill, dig, frack and keep America and New York able to support its current needs while building and growing our future energy sources. There is a way to incentivize both and still achieve the end goal. | ||
| Gail,Mott | The Climate Act is essential to our survival - for the health of the earth and all flora and fauna on it. It must be enacted now. The earth is a unique and sacred place that we are despoiling in many ways - from fracking to mountain-top removal. Enacting this will require sacrifice. Sacrifice equals survival. For those whose economic well-being depends on jobs that will be eliminated there must be re-training for green energy positions. We will thrive as a people when we know we are working together for the common good. | ||
| Bruce,Wisbaum | Nothing should be done to reduce use of natural fuels or increase costs to New Yorkers. | ||
| Andrew,McCall | I just want to voice my support for this comprehensive climate change plan and think that the more accelerated Scenario 4 option should be the plan enacted. Significant investment into CO2 reduction is critical for our future and will benefit our economy. | ||
| Mary-Teresa,Platt | Now is not the time to be putting further economic stress on people. We all don't have paychecks in the 6 figures. You should need looking for ways to help new yorkers instead of passing a far left agenda. No wonder people are leaving NYS in droves. | ||
| stanley,jok | I oppose the elimination of clean , efficient natural gas burning furnaces, hot water tanks and stoves. When our power goes out anywhere from several hours to days I still have Hot water and can cook on my gas stove.(electric stoves are useless in this circumstance).Government should not eliminate our right to choose how we heat our homes and cook our food! | ||
| Dawn,Raczka | Trees and plants need CO2 to live, by depriving them of something they need we are not helping them in any way. We should be looking at other countries who are bigger polluters than we are to curb their emissions. | ||
| James ,Serafin | There are many issues to consider with the so called green energy plan. 1. Batteries require Nickel and Nickel prices have just jumped 40%. This will drastically affect the price of batteries and return on investment of these cars. The natural reaction will be to keep gas powered cars on the road longer. 2. We have trillions of cu feet of natural gas and this idea to make houses electric is absurd. Electricity prices will skyrocket as demand increases. 3. Gas powered vehicles have very low emissions currently. Study abiotic oil. 4. Get off the aggressive green energy push and think realistically and consider the impacts on NYS businesses and families. These initiatives always have costs and push families and businesses out of NYS. 5. CO2 is not a pollutant. What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? 6. Let the free market work as innovation is efficient. | ||
| Lou,Bergner | Dear Senator Rath, For many reasons, and regardless of ones political view, as residents of the planet, we are all, both individually and collectively, responsible for exercising good stewardship of the environment and the resources of the planet. Whether viewed from the point of view of climate change and its impacts on living conditions around the world, or in light of the current political/economiic challenges that we face, we are obliged to be proactive in our efforts to make the necessary changes in our infrastructure and our behaviors so as to mitigate the impacts of our current practices on the environment and our health. I am neither a scientist or a technician, however, I firmly believe that actions like the ones proposed in the plan that you shared must be pursued, and that through the coordinated actions of the individuals, working in communities, and with our institutions significant progress can be made. This will call for diligent monitoring and adjustments as we progress, since this undertaking at this scale is new to all of us, and will require course corrections as we progress. Therefore, I believe that we must spare no effort to act aggressively, but responsibly, to correct or reverse our infrastructure and systems for our good, for the good of future generations, and for the population of the world. | ||
| Don,Erb | In order for residential and commercial property owners to think about retrofitting HVAC equipment with electrically "fueled" equipment, financial incentives have to be in place. That is discussed in the chapter. Prior to that step, a number of case study installations need to be done and documented to assure property owners that the retrofits will work as needed in their setting (i.e. much colder upstate than downstate). There could be considerable business interruption and/or longer term phasing in buildings to achieve the kinds of retrofits under consideration. I suggest a pilot project or projects incentivized by NYSERDA soon to show property owners how retrofits might work. | ||
| Jessica ,Teresi | How about we use the direct air capture of CO2 to make a syngas that we can use instead of gasoline. As opposed to mining the crap out of the earth for all of the metals that are necessary for the batteries that go along with the electrification of vehicles. There are more than a few companies like https://prometheusfuels.com/ As an alternative, we could also use biogas made from Waste to Energy Plants to fuel our vehicles. We also need to immediately require that Climate Change Curriculum be taught in ALL schools, so that our kids understand that this is a REALLY BIG problem and that we need to change the way we do everything. In the interim, Governor Hochul could issue a work from home mandate for all employees that are able to without extra accommodation, this would lessen the demand on fossil fuels until such a time that we I have a million ideas.. but considering gas has gone up over $2 a gallon from about a year ago, I would say the work from home order should be implemented immediately. | ||
| Roger,Piger | I believe that the primary source of advancements and modifications to the current infrastructure ought to be done through the private business sector, not through government regulation and oversight. The government of our state and nation, continue to overstep their role and fail to accomplish very at all, in an efficient and organized fashion. Less government oversight in all these areas would be better for each community. | ||
| Brian,Schuler | I’m really upset in the direction New York is headed. I received an email to submit a comment. I can no longer afford to live in New York State. I have an exit plan in place. | ||
| Frank,Queeno | As a retired person on a fixed income, I have grave concerns that the plan will make things happen too fast. It will make lives harder and cause financial hardships for almost all Senior Citizens. My wife and I are born NY's and had to leave the state for 12 years for my job. We moved back 2 years ago and have found the property taxes and especially the school taxes to be over whelming. If the cost of living goes up more, we will have to consider moving to a more affordable state. Please consider the residents of NY when applying any plan. Please find alternative funding for schools and relive the burden from property owners. Please stop taxing my pension and Social Security. | ||
| Edmund R,Budzynski | We have a common enemy which is the Russian government or Putin. We need to stand together. Democrat or Republican must find ways to become energy independent. It’s time for the pipeline from Canada to be completed. Also oil can once again be extracted from shale. Consumers need to conserve fossil fuels. Don’t speed, or jack rabbit start and stop. Everyone flies at 80mph on NYS i290 and i90. (Not blaming state police). The speed limits can be reduced to 50mph. Instead of waiting for coffee in Drive Thru lines, make people park and go inside. I’m tired of Some people whining about their “rights being taken away”. As a vet I see most people do not care about country before self. Very sad. Thank you Ed Budzynski | ||
| Daryl,Odhner | I am fully supportive of NY State's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I believe NY must move to implement regulations to meet the goals of the Act, and to gradually eliminate the use of fossil fuels. | ||
| John,Lipani | I think the overall plan is a good one, although I'm not so sure about the timeline. Anything to get the Corporate fossil-fuel greed-monkeys off our backs is welcome. There will be lots of resistance from the profiteers in our current energy systems and there are a lot of stupid people who believe ANY attempt by a government to improve the future is some sort of nefarious plot to "destroy our freedoms". I also think what needs doing is to convince people this is not an "either-or" scenario. Fossil fuel will be around for a long time yet. Good luck, you'll need it. | ||
| Robert,Kaminska | Let’s get back to US energy independence. Let’s drill, frack and explore all areas to improve energy availability and lowercosts. Forget the green energy initiatives. They are expensive, are unreliable and don’t work. Those people have had their say. Enough is enough. Move on from them. They have issues in New York? Move to California. | ||
| William,Klein | While it makes sense to address the environment, for multiple reasons, current issues we are now dealing with demand a course correction. We cannot take more money out of NY citizens' pockets. Taxes are in the top 2 States as the highest and more increase in fuel will drive more people to flee the State for locations that are better managing their State business and budgets. A gradual reduction in fossil fuels is reasonable with required course corrections along that pathway as situations demand, as they do now and until the Ukraine war is resolved and America has brought fuel costs down to a reasonable per- Covid level. Anything else is simply irresponsible and legislators should and will be held accountable | ||
| Peter,Messinger | I have briefly read through the NYS emissions reduction plan and believe it will never happen in the time frame indicated, not to mention the budget it will take. I am not a believer in coal, gas, oil or nuclear facilities as they all present their individual problems or concerns. Nuclear being my biggest concern especially what is going on in the world today. Considering the cost associated with each solution, how about looking at individual structures and building solar farms? Much easier to protect the grid as it is spread out over a larger area and individuals given solar farm grants could install systems on their property at a faster rate and sell power back to the grid. I see so much potential in solar as compared to other solutions. I would like to install solar panels on my house as I have a South facing home with abundant square footage, but the cost of investment with little tax incentive does not make it viable. The University at Buffalo has several large solar farm installations. I would like to see a report on who well it is working for them. | ||
| Laurie,Mittlefehldt | This plan is overreaching and excessive in its scope. Wood and natural gas and propane are how many New Yorkers heat their homes. They are part of NY's natural resources which makes them affordable. Improved efficiency furnaces, AC, water heaters, etc all help to decrease emissions. Electricity is more expensive and with less use of coal for electricity generation, it's sources are less dependable. Please scale back this plan to decrease the cost burden on average New Yorkers. | ||
| Denise,Ferkey | The time is move to clean energy is NOW. We can not continue to kick the can down the road - there will never be an "easy" or "convenient" time. We are rapidly running out of time to transition to renewable energy and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. We must move forward with this plan! | ||
| Michael ,Matusiak | Continue with the greater use of electric vehicles, but fast track the the use of hydrogen vehicles. The electric grid must be improved to make sure the greater demand is met in every area of the country. Provide safe disposal of depleted batteries. | ||
| Richard,Kohlman | The "Climate change" agenda is a means to an end for the people behind the scenes who are really in control. I don't think you are being honest with us and there is an alternative agenda. Be honest with your intent and scope. Let the people vote directly on this, not just our representative stooges! You are killing New York with even more impractical regulations and costs. | ||
| Mary Jane,Abrams | How much more tone deaf can our politicians be? Affordable green energy is a laudable goal, but far into the future. We need to focus on the emergency at hand. National security FIRST. Return to energy independence today. | ||
| John ,Mertz | None | Large tax breaks for electric sun panels, electric cars at home charging stations. Make it worth consumers expense to switch from fossil fuel to electric. | |
| Stanley,Bukowski | I read the Draft Scoping Plan Overview. The general plan sounds reasonable and necessary if all the pieces are indeed as described. Which business sectors will pay the highest price and lose the most business under the new plan? Will they be compensated? Subsidized? What is the current difference in health burden for those in poverty vs middle class vs wealthy under the existing energy system? How will that change under the new plan? What is the expected change in the cost of housing and the cost of appliances for various family/household groups under the new plan? Will they be compensated? Subsidized? How will the new plan affect the day-to-day life of consumers? Are there any existing communities worldwide that are close to the proposed model? What does daily family life look like there regarding living space and energy use and transportation? How do parks and recreation spaces and landscape change under the new plan? Thank you. | ||
| Robert,Kosobucki | This is to express my wholehearted support of the efforts by New York State and other public and private entities to reduce negative impacts on our climate and their consequential negative impacts on our economy, personal safety, collective wealth, national security, and quality of life. I understand that there may be short term inconveniences and personal costs, but that is a small price for the long term benefits to residents of New York, the U.S.A. and our future. Robert Kosobucki | ||
| Kathleen,DunwoodieAman | It is imperative that we take climate change seriously and I am very glad that New York State is taking this step to do our part. | ||
| Constance,Fiorella | Retired US citizen taxpayer for over 50 years | All we ever hear is how jobs are going to be created by every new venture that’s coming into New York State and what happens with the taxpayers are crippled with higher tax bills and nothing is ever done all we see is groundbreaking with gold shovels and nothing good comes out of it I think governor Hochul is doing a horrible job I think she tried to grandstand after she got in after Cuomo got out and it’s horrible I have been a Democrat my whole life but I am ashamed to say that I am anymore what is coming of this world in the way it is being ran is a travesty instead of the governor grandstanding why doesn’t she actually do something all we hear is how New York State is going to be great how New York State is going to do this how it’s going to do that yet I have seen nothing and the energy costs are going up and up and up if we put a two-year-old in office we might get better results and let’s not even talk about bail reform because it’s a joke they say it was created because certain people couldn’t pay for bail then certain people shouldn’t do anything to have bail I’ve always been told that when you do wrong you should be able to stand up and say that you’ve done something wrong stop passing the buck and make New York State I stay to be proud of again | |
| Jeff,Flynn | You guys are Fing INSANE!!! Have you ACTUALLY ASKED the people what they want - lower prices or some fantasy about zero carbon emmissions? Do you have a long term PLAN for that? Where will all this electricity come from? You dont want nuclear, solar in NY is feeble at best, wind is undependable - and our winters are FREAKING COLD! Now you are removing natural gas - an extremely clean and efficient energy source. So how about this - instead of subjecting the entire state to this insanity - lets see it first work for NYC and Albany. NO gas, only wind and solar - show us it works. You keep getting crazier and crazier you will soon have no tax base left! | ||
| Mark,Eshleman | I think any clean/green energy plan should first consider energy generation. Electric vehicles would be nice but we don't have enough clean energy capacity to charge all the batteries, heat homes, etc. Let's face it, besides nuclear power we rely heavily on fossil fuel to generate electricity and I don't see that changing anytime soon. All these goals with deadlines for clean energy are premature until we have a viable power generation plan. I don't see that the technology exists to support all "green" plans. | ||
| Stephen,Zimmer | The proposed NYS Climate Action Council Scoping Plan to eliminate new gas service by 2024 to existing buildings and new construction, no new gas appliances for homes by 2030 and gas-powered cars by 2035 is just another example of government overreach and just plain stupidity. New York is already bleeding from the loss of businesses due to the burden of taxes and the number of people leaving the state is at an all-time high. Yes the impact of emissions needs to be addressed but driving business and people out of the state is going to make a bad situation worse. This plan must not move forward | ||
| Michael,Dolan | Although some portions of this legislation are acceptable, most of it is poorly managed and politically driven . The taxes and regulations in NYS are already excessive and this will lead to future citizens leaving NYS. Unfortunately, this is the type of policy that will cause me and my family to leave NYS within the next 3-4 years. Terms like climate justice and just transition are political terms to drive the citizens of NY further apart. | ||
| Matthew,Borkowski | I believe the plan you are proposing not only diminishes the value of our home and property but they are possibly criminal. Please stop this insanity before even more of us are chased out of the state. | ||
| Anita,McCabe | Due to presently high prices of oil/gas, Please stop rising baning reliable cheaper resources at this time any way possible as NY is already losing residence due to high taxes and economy. This has been a major strain on working people! | ||
| Genevieve,Lubrano | I have read this plan. It will ruin NY. If that is your goal with this unrealistic bill then you will succeed. Left wing socialist ideas have ruined California. I am against passing this garbage. | ||
| Meredith,Conti | We need to decarbonize as soon as possible. I support the robust and rapid transition to renewable energy in New York. | ||
| Peter,Buccoleri | LET'S START USING SOME COMMON SENCE. THIS "GREEN" CRAP" IS NOT HERE AND WON"T BE HERE FOR SOME TIME. WE "THE PEOPLE" NEED TO LIVE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. STOP TALKING ABOUT HOW BAD IT IS AND HOW BAD IT'S GOING TO GET WE KNOW ALL THAT. START FIGHTING FOR WHAT MAKE SENCE. WE HAD ENERGY UNDER CONTROL UNDER TRUMP. LET'S BRING THOSE POLICIES BACK. WHAT'S THE USE OF VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN IF THEY GET NOTHING DONE. BE LIKE THE LIBERALS AND START MAKING NOISE AND FIGHT. I WANT TO SEE YOU FIGHT OR LOSE MY VOTE. | ||
| Donald,Campagna | Please stop forcing laws like this down the throats of New Yorkers. We have had significant population loss, we are burdened with the 2nd highest tax burden in the nation. It is getting harder and harder to live in NY. Bills like this show how out of touch NY’s lawmakers are with the population of the state and its residents. | ||
| Raymond,Tompkins | I am retired and I can't afford any programs that cost me more or I'm going to lose my home with double digit inflation all programs that raise the cost of living including environmental should be put on hold. | ||
| Mike,Augello | NY should not doing anything to increase the cost of energy. They should look at hydrogen fuel cells and support the development of these systems. They are a much more green energy compared to fossil fuels, wind and solar. They are scalable and highly adaptive. they can be used in the transportation sector along with powering homes and facilities along with farm equipment and recreation vehicles as well. | ||
| Wayne,Trouse | Leadership in New York is destroying the middle class trying to make ends meet. | ||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Reliable Oil gives us gasoline, jet fuel electricity and over 6000 household products Unreliable wind not work 74% of a year Unreliable solar not work 87% of a year I don't believe anyone reads these submissions. South Carolina & Georgia doing great job with solar. | |
| Marye Ann,Harris | Sen. Griffo just published an article that itemizes the time table for the goals of the Climate Action Committee. I find them overly aggressive and without consideration for the everyday people that will be effected. Eliminating new connections for gas by 2024 (less than 2 years away) will have a dramatic impact especially the lower income people. Gas is the primary means of heating here in upstate NY. This limitation will also discourage businesses from building or expanding in NY state, and we already have an issue with people fleeing the state for many reasons. If we can't buy natural gas appliances to replace our existing ones we would be forced to replace them with electric which may require improved wiring in our homes. For the average person that is expensive. To totally eliminate gas from our lives is unrealistic, and will devastate our lower income families and the economy overall. I do think some modifications are in order, but I don't have high hopes of any great improvements when the major producers of pollution such as India and China really have no intentions of getting onboard despite their claims. Please cut back on this time table to a more gradual overhaul, As with any major issue, a central approach is usually the right one.There are extremist views such as yours and those who think climate change is a hoax. The truth and answers lie somewhere in the middle. | ||
| Philip,Danielson | Climate Action Council, As a citizen of the USA and a resident of NYS, I want efficient, consistent, cheap and diverse energy sources. This includes nuclear, coal, natural gas, gasoline. I want consistent power whether sunny or cloudy, windy or still. I think solar and wind are ugly and due to their much less efficient power generation, they will be everywhere we look, wrecking the landscape and views we enjoy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Phil Danielson | ||
| Matthew,Howell | This is a DISASTER not a plan. The elimination of choice from the energy market is a government sponsored monopoly. The cost of electric is currently out of control the cost will only rise as competition is eliminated. As the State takes generating facilities off line like Indian Point and blocks the building of other new non renewable facilities the current demand for electric can’t be meet. What will happen as demand increases? This is the first step to socialism. How does this affect small business? How many people will be put out of business and lose jobs because of this? How will they provide for their families? How will this affect the state’s economy, I bet that was never thought of. What cost will the home owner have to meet these demands. If it’s not broke don’t fix it. My propane furnace keeps my home nice and warm in the winter. The electric heat pumps you push are a joke. Thank you | ||
| Mike,Abbate | The Time is not now. We don’t have a viable effective alternative to our carbon energy sources. Windmills and solar are both up side down on greenhouse gas let alone cost effective to our current sources. Actioning your proposals would only bankrupt our citizens and businesses. we are experiencing a real life test as the Russia Ukrainian war escalates - look at Germany. Suggestion - adopt and endorse natural gas as the bridge source of energy. It’s clean and it exists in abundance. Then let the free market forces drive the evolution of energy. This would be such a wining and timely strategy for NY and for our nation. This bill will drive NY into economic ruin. | ||
| Glenn and Debra,Longer | This is just nonsense. 341 pages to kill our economy. No one could afford cars anymore. Couldn't afford to heat our houses or buy new appliances. What is wrong with you people living in your ivory towers??? You want to work on climate control, but forget about the average citizen and how it will affect them. VERY SHORT-SIGHTED. PRAYING YOU WILL START OVER AND USE COMMON SENSE THIS TIME. | ||
| Ronald,Kraeger | I think this proposal is absolutely absurd. It will create hardships on the rural communities and burden already over taxed and over regulated New Yorkers. It is idiotic to think natural gas can be replaced with electricity. Natural gas is a clean and reliable source of energy where as electricity is not reliable or effective. This was dreamed up by a bunch of bureaucrats that know nothing about energy or economics. If this is enacted in NY I will leave this state take my money and go to another state that listens to their people. How ridiculous! Ron Kraeger | ||
| Frank,Frisina | Appendices are listed and this page has chapters listed--great start! JUst read above this page and the review period started two months ago--great start! National FUel is late-- very late-- to get the plan out-- I wonder why? One Problem is: NYS population is dropping faster than the real numbers are known to the public. A program such as this doc will drive all down state people out of NY because downstate will pay. 2nd where is Indian Point 3 in this plan? NYSERDA easily allowed Cuomo to shutdown IP3-- This plan is doomed because NYS makes anything look real--money is no objective-- in meantime, retired Politicians leave the NYstate once they damage my State with a program such as this. (and take their pensions and Campagne funds with them). Generators upstate NYS are providing excellent jobs with strong earnings. There are few, if any, NYS upstate employment with equal employment. This doc will kill upstate jobs. Fundamentally and economically unsound and unworkable for such an expansive, present day, NY State. Using NYISO data is misleading and does not provide the full scope of work. Visit the cities, towns, villages, hamlets, counties that will be the target of such a document. Go to the generators and research the life of each generator and the people that have worked their lifetime to keep the generators running for the great state of NY! The files are filled with data and test reports, and engineering drawings, and O&M manuals and love that was provided at each outage. It's disappointing to read such a document--as if NY has such predetermined leadership for such a program. | ||
| Justin,Bockman | The plan to transition NYS's energy by 2050 is aggressive and unrealistic to what market adaptations can change. In order for the energy transformation to be effective it has to be rooted in where the market actually is. Consumers are unable to adapt and transform quickly in this environment and this may only cause environmental Red-Tape as opposed to aiding the transition. I believe the goals or more political in nature and bound to fail or have painful side-effects more than a healthy and positive transition. Please consider revising expectations and allowing for a longer transition. Not every issue can be existential and urgent that America faces. Sincerely, Justin | ||
| Nicholas,Nardozza | This plan will double the price of New Yorkers electricity bills. National Grid bills cost more money than mortgages now for many people I know. To rely on electricity to heat and power homes and businesses and vehicles is too costly, and will be prone to problems especially in winter months. This will only increase the exodus from New York State. | ||
| Don,Erb | T4. Customer Convenience and Service Connectivity Convenience, connectivity, safety and cleanliness are all available to me in my car. I would gladly give the car up and the $800-1,000 a month it costs to pay for, insure, fuel, and park it if I could have those things in local public transportation. I have experienced it abroad in Paris and London, in places like Atlanta, DC, SLC, and San Fran. Time is precious and Buffalo is cold 6 months a year. If you can't supply a clean, safe convenient ride from a shelter not dilapidated or blocked by a mountain of ice, focus your efforts elsewhere. | ||
| Arnold,Briscoe | Town of Glenville | You can't be serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Killing NYS once again...... | |
| Gregory,Tomsic | Making a whole-sale change would not be beneficial nor practical. Considering that all transport services, farming equipment, construction equipment and rail transportation as well as shipping vessels all rely on fossil fuel. Additionally, switching to electricity would create a monopoly of the local electrical provider as there will be no choice of utilities. What is the plan for electrical utility outages as many rely on fossil fueled generators for life support (let's not also forget toll collections). Electrical energy is generated using fossil fuels and now a greater demand for electrical energy would overburden the electrical grid as well as cause homeowners and businesses to upgrade services. The cost of changing out heating plants in buildings and homes as well as hot water generation devices and cooking appliances is a cost burden not affordable. Perhaps a review of existing ways and systems would curtail global het generation. Those would include traffic lights that change to stop more vehicles that those that pass. The use of expensive to operate gas guzzling law enforcement vehicles must be changed to a more efficient type. Depressed sanitary manholes gather surface water and send to processing consuming excessive unnecessary energy. | ||
| Carl,LaPlante | In chapter 12 the report talks about plans to help LMI's convert their properties. I think you also need to address retired individuals like myself that are single family homeowners on a limited income. Also need to take into account the fact that many of the current construction businesses are not capable of doing the energy conversions properly. Would be great if the committee could work on putting together a list of certified companies in the future that can do the jobs right. Note the popular TV show where Mike Homes uncovers several slip shod practices by contractors. In addition I find it hard to believe that natural gas is such a high contributor to emissions that it is being viewed as a primary item to be replaced. | ||
| Roger ,Chagnon | This plan would completely devastate the NY State economy and destroy the way of life of the citizens. The technology is not yet sufficiently developed to move to an economy not based on fossil fuels. The exodus of the New York State population to less insanely restrictive areas would cripple the states economy. This plan is short sighted, untimely, and incredibly irrational. In time, maybe. Now, no. | ||
| Debra,Fitts | There is no climate emergency. The left is making this up to destabilize our country and its people. I am against every single thing in this proposal. I believe our leaders have gone mad. We are a constitutional republic which means we are represented by officials not the other way around. Families will be devastated, farmers and businesses also. I know that is the agenda - I am speaking out against it. This is ALL so very wrong. We need natural gas. We do not need electric vehicles - craziest idea ever. And yes, we desire our own personal automobiles and affordable gasoline. And what is climate justice? Reminds me of social justice. The progressives are out to ruin us once and for all. Again, I am firmly against all of this. | ||
| steve,cowen | I am against the purposed so called energy plan. It will put too much strain on an already over taxed population which I believe will make more people leave NY State. Natural Gas is the best way to heat houses etc.. No selling of new cars, powered by gasoline, in NY State is totally stupid, just think of all the lost jobs. With the thought of most things powered by electricity, (1) can the electric companies provide enough power (2) older houses have to update their electric service, again at a cost to your population (3) replacing gas appliances, stoves, furnaces. There seem to be many problems that is energy plan is going to bring to light but here we are again. Doing what is best for the people is not what this plan is about. | ||
| Kathleen,Sainsbury | I’m writing in opposition to this law that would force people to change from natural gas to electric heat. It is completely cost prohibited. I am not in a position to be able to convert my heating to electric. Please do not pass this | ||
| sandra,carpenter | The total lack of understanding of the hardship/ inability to pay for the changes that is unrealistic plan will present to the AVERAGE citizen/homeowner/small business owner/rural resident is totally appalling.! These Gov't agencies in Albany are so out of touch with the rural communities that it is sickening. I am so disheartened by NYS government, that I would leave the State if I could. But, I am too old to give up everything and leave the place where I was born. Albany is CLUELESS about citizens who live in rural areas. | ||
| Richard,Scalzo | NYS is totally obsessed with "climate change." It does NOT exist and is another creation of Democrats and leftists. These turbines and solar panels are nothing but eyesores and are destroying our environment. This state is led by Commkie crazies! | ||
| Angela,Siegle | Is NY State going to buy all new appliances for my house? Is NYState going to update my electric service to handle them appliances and apparently electric cars that you want us to have? I have several cars, trucks, tractors and etc that all gas. I live in the country can you tell me that an electric car or truck can make the hour drive to the city and back without having to PAY to charge it? What happens when my electric goes out in winter and can’t heat my home( cause you want to ban wood stoves also) or eat because everything is electric. My generator is gas and I won’t be able to use it? What about all the Natural gas workers that will lose their jobs? This affects my family. This will just be one more reason for my family to leave NY. I really hope that you politicians think long and hard about this. If you want to change the climate then go after the countries that are the biggest offender’s, not the hard working Americans trying to get by. | ||
| Donald,Bloomquist | Bloomquist's Landscaping, Inc. | These are disastrous policies that will cripple businesses. I urge the climate action council to use common sense and proceed with caution. NYS businesses have had all we can take. I've been in business over 40 years and I'm ready to call it quits with more and more burdensome taxes and regulations. | |
| JEFF,TABASCO | The time is not now to decarbonize our environment. This proposal is putting the cart before the horse. Other energy options need to be in place before we cut back on the use of fossil fuels. This proposal will accelerate the exodus of New Yorkers. The United States of America only contributes between 12% to 15% of the world's greenhouse gasses. Whatever we do is not going to impact the warming of the earth. The biggest polluters; Russia, China, and India are not about to cut back emissions and destroy their economies. We need to make NY an affordable place to live and work. Please remove these ridiculous restrictions. | ||
| Phillip,Lepine | It is so disgustingly obvious that albany's goal is to enslave the state's population, making them reliant upon the government for sustenance, housing, and transportation. to rmeove all individuality from the population. To remove all freedom and force the state's popualtion in subserviance. There is no cleaner form of energy than natural gas. Solar and wind are nothing more than pipe dreams. Are you going to install solar panels across the entirity of wetlands in the state? Are you going to put chinese mad wind turbines lubricated with their toxic oils in everybody's backyards, causing health problems for those nearby? Solar panels on everyone's house with a 25 year payback that have to be replaced after 10 years? You people are scam artists. Criminals. | ||
| Lynn,Boucher | The proposal on the table will make NYS a state where even more people will leave. We are not California, with mild temperatures and beautiful beaches. We have sub-zero temperatures and plenty of bad weather. This is an overreaching proposal and should be voted down in the strongest sense. We have many people who would no longer afford to live in NYS. You say an easy solution is to switch to Geo-Thermal. Has anyone priced out what this change would cost? We are already an over-regulated state. This legislation would make the State an even more unattractive state to continue living in or moving to in the future. Stop burdening the people of this State with this legislation. Climate change is an issue, but this legislation is not the solution. By giving a date far out in the future, you are trying to prepare people for this change, but I disagree. I think you are preparing this State for failure. Our cost of living is already too high compared to other states. Stop this legislation before the only sound you hear is moving trucks leaving our State. | ||
| Jeremy,Bullock | I'm concerned with your timeline for new buildings and the move to heat pumps. Heat pumps need to be above the snowline. This is they type of narrow concern that comes out of Albany and NYC. But think about Western NY and Central NY where it snows double or more than it does in Albany or NYC. It is not practical for a working family to constantly have to go in their yard and dig out the heat pump. It is not practical for this same request to be made of elderly or mobility impaired individuals. I'm also concerned with your timeline to move to fully electric vehicles. My wife drives all day to work. We also commute long distance to visit family. It is not practical in situations like those to charge a vehicle throughout the day or to stop on a long distance trip (Example Syracuse to Northern Adirondacks). Ultimately I think the passing of all this will increase costs for New Yorkers. Population in New York is rapidly declining. I think this will cause more people to leave and tax revenues will decrease, vacancy will increase and small businesses will suffer. | ||
| Carol,Stanchus | Self | First if all I was born in NYS, and have lived here most of my life. My family loves NYS! These plans are terrible, and we don't support the current climate change agenda. If NYS continues in this direction, I and my family will do the only thing left, and will vote with our feet by moving out of state. We don't want to do that and hope the next election will fix some of the current problems. | |
| Jeremy,Miller | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jimmy,Fontenot | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Emily,Hall | Firewood for home heating is absolutely critical to myself and many of my neighbors. Without it many of us would not be able to heat our homes. This is a low-cost, economical way for us to heat because for many of us we are able to cut scrubwood for firewood on our own land. | ||
| Christopher,Inkiow | Hamilton College | We examine the potential for incentivizing reforestation of abandoned agricultural lands in New York State through two tax policies: a property tax exemption and an income tax credit. We compare the incentivization structures of both policies by simulating net benefits to landowners and total costs per county. Ultimately, we find that the income tax credit incentivizes landowners more efficiently than the property tax exemption. The motivation for exploring property tax exemptions follows the New York State Climate Action Council’s 2021 Draft Scoping Plan, which considers creating Real Property Tax Law 480c to incentive landowners to pursue carbon sequestering land management practices. The Draft Scoping Plan also considers the revisioning of the 480a Forest Tax Law program for forest management carbon sequestration. In this paper, we simulate Real Property Tax Law 480c with an incentivization structure mirrored on the active 480a Forest Tax Law program. | |
| Jeffrey,Strauser | I am totally against the proposed Climate Action Plan because it will be horribly expensive and absolutely not needed. And worst of all, going to almost all electricity being produced by renewables (wind and solar) will cause catastrophic damage to the environment. It will be absolutely impossible for wind and solar to produce even enough electricity just to keep up with current needs, much less if New York wants to electrify everything, including vehicles. Renewables are dilute, intermittent, parasitic, horribly expensive, and very unreliable. The catastrophic climate change scam is almost all a left-wing money-making political scam, with zero bases in real science. I have been paying attention to the solar panels and wind towers already all over Chautauqua County. Every time we have a snow or ice storm, the solar panels are covered with snow for days or weeks at a time. Many days are also calm. If you have a calm day with snow, zero electricity will be produced. This is in the winter when all houses will be required to heat with electricity so you will have not heat and no way to drive your car. Pipes in houses will freeze and the house will be ruined. Large numbers of people, especially the elderly, will die. This is happening in Europe right now because they went “renewable.” This created massive “energy poverty”. Even under the best of circumstances solar panels take more energy in making and maintaining, than you will ever get out of them in our area. And they are worthless in the winter months even without snow. This is because of the great lakes our area receives less sunlight than almost any other region in the United States. This problem is demonstrated by the almost universal vitamin D deficiency of our population in New York State. We produce vitamin D in our skin when it is exposed to sunlight, but we receive so little sunlight on a year around basis, we never produce enough. What might work in Arizona, cannot work in New York State. To | ||
| Douglas,Singleton | Although the objectives of the plan seem worthy in reality the timeline seems unrealistic! For existing homeowners using natural gas it would be unfair to deny them replacement appliances or furnaces and switching to electric would not be affordable for most! This plan would have a negative effect for most. This plan should be revamped to include longer timelines and elimination of the requirements for selling of appliances to existing natural gas users! They should of been grandfathered in useless they chose to switch. | ||
| John,Lisa | I believe that the current plan to restrict and eventually eliminate natural gas and gasoline is the most reckless plan that I have ever heard. New York is hemorrhaging residents. Better to widen the roads south since the exodus out will be staggering. How can this help anyone when you bring these rules without viable alternative options. You will crush the middle class. Wind and solar sound good, but don’t work. With a switch to all electric, the already overloaded grid will collapse. I strongly urge that you keep natural gas and gasoline as options until technology catches up to provide better means of energy. | ||
| Catherine,Brokaw | I am absolutely against banning NY residents from using natural gas or propane now or in the future. Who are you to tell us how we heat our homes? I believe in using a mixed fuel approach to our future. Adding additional taxes to fuel for "green goals" is going to further squeeze the taxpayers.Giving us less options seems that supply and demand pricing will pinch us as well. How is our economy going to grow if you make it too expensive to do business here? How are we to be competitive? I can't compete with my competition in TX or FL. As a small business owner, I don't know how much longer I can stay operable unless I consider relocating. I most certainly can't afford to hire anyone now. To fill the oil tank for my warehouse only 3/4 full was $970 (up $200 from last month) I get to pay that extra business tax on top of it all. Luckily, I filled it last week before the price of gas jumped over $4 a gallon. I would hate to do the math. Have you not noticed the mass exodus from NY? I will not vote for any politician that limits our choices and hikes our taxes. I know I am not alone. Do the right thing and serve the people of NY, not your special interest. I don't want to rush summer but I can't wait to vote in the midterm elections. | ||
| walter,chmura | many persons have invested significantly in transitioning from oil to propane...more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper until the BIDEN/CUOMO administrations...Now they want to jettison those economy moves by many ...and institute an untested wind/solar energy source...i vote for nuclear...it is clean, efficient, and long lasting....$ should be invested into how to handle the waste....... the Gore/Kerry climate fatalists need to back off....they are inconsiderate of those many on the lower end of the spectrum who will suffer miserably to promote their draconian energy policies..... already the working poor are paying exponentially higher costs to fuel their cars.... what is going on....Covid killed small business and workers...public school is a teacher welfare system....govt is very costly represenative govt, but it hardly represents US....total disregard against small farms, business, workers, the total focus on wind solar is a non starter...only a component of energy but not the total answer.....We know what is going on...punish folks into adopting the NEW ideology..... | ||
| Rachel ,Siderine | Enough is enough with NY State government regulations. We are one of the highest regulated states in this country. People are moving out in droves. Who are you to tell me the kind of car I can drive or the kind of oven I can buy in my house? New Yorkers have had enough. I've had enough. I am literally on the verge of moving from this state. Yes climate control is important. Ask people to make good choices. You don't get to control us and make the decisions for us. | ||
| Lee,Lindsey | I'm writing the following as a 12-year resident of upstate New York. I had never planned to leave the state for any reason other than that of vacationing. However, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify remaining a citizen of this great state (geographically speaking) as time passes. It seems, to many of us rural New Yorker's that we are simply invisible to the politicians that continue to enact legislation, that not only doesn't benefit us but actually makes our lives more difficult. After reading several hundred pages of the draft scoping plan, I'm left with a feeling of absolute hopelessness for my future here in New York as well as the future of the next generation. Upon initial discovery of the massive document, I had anticipated to see initiative's outlined that would do as the name implies: make our state greener. While those initiatives are certainly evident, the focus seems to be more centered on implementation of laws that would impact nearly every aspect of life for New Yorker's, a majority I would argue in a negative way. Embedded in the text of these draconian measures, are numerous social justice topics, written as though they inherently align with one another. I believe that most of our residents (NY) care about the environment, especially on a regional level. We are not opposed or blind to the fact that we need to take care of our planet and take reasonable measures to do so. Reasonable measures. The measures outlined in the draft scoping plan are far from reasonable. Nearly everyone that I know in my area (Otsego County) relies on gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, propane and or natural gas. Everyday. Given our geography, we simply can't do without them and maintain any reasonable quality of life. If implemented as planned, New Yorker's would be forced to choose between leaving the state, which has become all too common in recent years, or bear the burden of the laws and regulations outlined in this plan. It's up to you. | ||
| Katie,Lindsey | I'm writing the following as a lifelong resident of upstate New York. I had never planned to leave the state for any reason other than that of vacationing. However, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify remaining a citizen of this great state (geographically speaking) as time passes. It seems, to many of us rural New Yorker's that we are simply invisible to the politicians that continue to enact legislation, that not only doesn't benefit us but actually makes our lives more difficult. After reading several hundred pages of the draft scoping plan, I'm left with a feeling of absolute hopelessness for my future here in New York as well as the future of the next generation. Upon initial discovery of the massive document, I had anticipated to see initiative's outlined that would do as the name implies: make our state greener. While those initiatives are certainly evident, the focus seems to be more centered on implementation of laws that would impact nearly every aspect of life for New Yorker's, a majority I would argue in a negative way. Embedded in the text of these draconian measures, are numerous social justice topics, written as though they inherently align with one another. I believe that most of our residents (NY) care about the environment, especially on a regional level. We are not opposed or blind to the fact that we need to take care of our planet and take reasonable measures to do so. Reasonable measures. The measures outlined in the draft scoping plan are far from reasonable. Nearly everyone that I know in my area (Otsego County) relies on gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, propane and or natural gas. Everyday. Given our geography, we simply can't do without them and maintain any reasonable quality of life. If implemented as planned, New Yorker's would be forced to choose between leaving the state, which has become all too common in recent years, or bear the burden of the laws and regulations outlined in this plan. It's up to you. | ||
| Lara ,Parton | Climate Change is real and must be taken seriously. Unless we listen to the science and take the steps the scientists recommend this planet will become uninhabitable. And we may well have to go to Mars. It won’t be me , but it wil be the issue for the children of today. If we want them to carry on our family into the future we must make sure they inherit a livable planet. | ||
| James,Underwood | The removal of other natural sources of for heat and appliances would produce a huge vulnerability to the infrastructure of N.Y. The disaster in Texas because of the power grid failure is one example of how bad this would be. By consolidating to a single form of energy , you provide a single target that is guaranteed to have massive impacts for every foreign entity and bad acter to hold NYer's hostage. Electricity is not carbon neutral by any means,it requires tremendous energy to produce. Most of which requires fossil fuel and petrolium products. The insulation on the wire alone is a vinyl /PVC plastic. The grid has not been properly maintained for years, the amount of fossil fuels required to bring the grid up to capactiy would offset alot of savings and carbon sequestration . Heating with electicity while mathmatically seems the most efficient, it takes alot of electricty to match the heat output of natural gas or fuel. Fuel also has a secondary infrared heat that adds to the convection heat produce. This also neglects the amount of maintenance on electrical heating devices and elements, which consume natural reaources and produce more waste. The extremely short timelines show the complete lack of understanding of the actual effects of this propasl. Zero carbon is a great goal, How ever rushed results producer bigger problems, and will cost communities more than it will help. | ||
| Jack,Kalka | This is the most rediculous idea I have ever heard. Electricity price is out of control now, what will it be? There isn't and won't be enough electricity to power all the EV cars(that will be mandated) and all electric homes and buildings! There isn't any way to eliminate fossil fuels in the next 2 or 3 decades!! | ||
| Tavish,Rathbone | I'm writing the following as a lifelong resident of upstate New York. I had never planned to leave the state for any reason other than that of vacationing. However, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify remaining a citizen of this great state (geographically speaking) as time passes. It seems, to many of us rural New Yorker's that we are simply invisible to the politicians that continue to enact legislation, that not only doesn't benefit us but actually makes our lives more difficult. After reading several hundred pages of the draft scoping plan, I'm left with a feeling of absolute hopelessness for my future here in New York as well as the future of the next generation. Upon initial discovery of the massive document, I had anticipated to see initiative's outlined that would do as the name implies: make our state greener. While those initiatives are certainly evident, the focus seems to be more centered on implementation of laws that would impact nearly every aspect of life for New Yorker's, a majority I would argue in a negative way. Embedded in the text of these draconian measures, are numerous social justice topics, written as though they inherently align with one another. I believe that most of our residents (NY) care about the environment, especially on a regional level. We are not opposed or blind to the fact that we need to take care of our planet and take reasonable measures to do so. Reasonable measures. The measures outlined in the draft scoping plan are far from reasonable. Nearly everyone that I know in my area (Otsego County) relies on gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, propane and or natural gas. Everyday. Given our geography, we simply can't do without them and maintain any reasonable quality of life. If implemented as planned, New Yorker's would be forced to choose between leaving the state, which has become all too common in recent years, or bear the burden of the laws and regulations outlined in this plan. It's up to you. | ||
| Hali,Holmes | I am very much in favor of the overall goals and objectives of the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. As a parent, grandparent, and educator of young children, I am extremely concerned about climate change and the repercussions of continuing to rely on fossil fuels. NY State should quickly and effectively work towards clean energy projects, which will not only protect the environment, but will lead to climate justice and the creation of new jobs. | ||
| Farley,Tierney | Sylvamo | Please DO NOT move forward with this plan. It will negatively impact the area in which I live and I am tired of the continual lack of consideration for the New Yorkers who live in the "North Country". New York City is NOT the only portion of the great state of New York that should be considered in current & future legislation. | |
| Judy ,Judd | This is a flat out no for me. How dare you force this on we the tax payers of NY so that you can get rich off it. This is the most absurd thing that you have done so far. This should be put on a ballot for all new Yorkers to vote on. I am ashamed to admit that I was ever a Democrat. Thank you for making me a republican. | ||
| Amy,Maycock | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Keith,Boyet | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Alex,Schettine | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Kyle,Long | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| George,Brown | Please do no move forward with this short sited legislation. Energy Security underpins State and National Security and Economic stability. This plan seems to over focus on direct emissions impact and under focus on the side effects of unreliable energy sources and the total "emmissions cost" of "renewable" energy when the tech to generate that energy isn't renewable but must be replenished regularly. This plan also doesn't seem to appreciate the environment that many people in upstate NY live in who's lives will be dramatically negatively impacted by many of these suggested actions. What is happening with Germany right now is a grave warning of the short term negative outcomes that are likely if you rely on outside and intermittently available sources for your energy, they are beholden to Russia due to their short sightedness. Nuclear energy likely needs to be a significantly larger portion of any plan that will allow NY and the US to move forward while successfully navigating the climate/energy challenges. Please do no move forward with this short sited legislation. | ||
| Steve,Russ-Clar | NY emission free To start, leaving us as a one utility consumer is making us vulnerable when that utility fails for any period of time. The benefits of variety ensure that cost, efficiency and security are not hostage to the ever changing economics of our world. As the world is now threatened by nation to nation violence, we cannot restrict any alternative fuel and energy source. Pretend all is electric today because we sought electricity as an alternative to fossil fuels. Now we need to legislate for alternative energy sources as we encounter problems with an electrical grid that cannot support total energy needs. It's a vicious circle. We need to support all energy sources to protect our national interests. If NY had all electric car legislation for next week, New Yorkers will be buying Canadian or Pennsylvanian or Ohio and New Jersey cars, on line probably. NY loses. All or nothing thinking is in and of itself flawed. Everyone wants diversity, give them diversity. Restricting commerce this way with legislation is firstly Socialism. Chill NY legislatures. Change is not to be imposed when talking about socio-economic issues. People drive markets, markets drive change......not legislation. If | ||
| Renee ,Hulbert | I’m not sure what world you live in, but Natural gas is so clean. Why would you not want people using it. The US is doing more for clean air than any other country. Instead of penalizing New Yorkers, which seems like your goal in life, why not try to clean up the rest of the world! Like China, for example. You people are just forcing more people out of this state with all of your ridiculous laws. Most regular people can’t afford the crap you’re cramming down our throats!!! | ||
| Carole,Sherwood | While I agree that we must use our resources and environment wisely I do not believe that the following list will help us along this path. They are unrealistic goals that will harm an already struggling upstate New York economy. • No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; • No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; • No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; • No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; • Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and • Installing geothermal heating by 2040. Please consider making less severe changes that will move us forward in the right direction without driving out the average resident. These changes are not cost effective for residents living on a fixed income or modest income. | ||
| paul,di palma | Is this a joke ? It's no wonder New Yorkers are flocking to Florida and Texas. SUNY colleges are offering free tuition as an incentive for graduates to reside here post graduation and you geniuses want to send them packing with these ludicrous proposals. | ||
| Billy ,Valerio | I have to say This democratic government that runs this state now Knows how to make constituents flee NYS. SMH. This has to be some of the stupidest ideas brought to the public. It’s a no vote for me and look forward to voting anyone out coming this November. | ||
| Brandon,Smith | The current global energy crisis is exposing the current dependence on liquid fuels. This dependence will remain a factor well into the future and shows that these plans to reduce carbon emissions will need to run in parallel with all green initiatives in order for the people of NYS to keep their lives going and achieve prosperity. A drastic and immediate cut from liquid fuels can only harm the same people that these bold environmental goals are designed to benefit. Reality check the plan against the ability of our economies to survive yet another year that bears global hardships and horror-show uncertainty. In short, the timeline must be extended and the infrastructure and technology must have the time to catch up to the ambitions of carbon-free energy. | ||
| David,DeSantis | Attorney | To the Climate Zealots that have taken over our government, This plan is insane. We are currently facing our worst geopolitical crisis in modern history. Energy costs are killing New Yorkers and NY is home to abundant natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region. We most DEVELOP our use of oil and natural gas which will improve our economy and lower gas prices. Shutting off the use of our gas systems will cost our already overburdened residents far more than we can afford and continue to destroy our economy. Windmills are a blight on the regions they are installed in. One only need to drive through Lowville to see how they get rid of beautiful natural landscapes, kill birds, and create noise pollution. WE NEED SANE ENERGY POLICIES. We will organize behind voting out any politician that supports this far left monstrosity. | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | 70% renewable won't happen..End of 2020 at 27.4% not approaching 70% Solar Panels don't work 87% of time over a year Wind Mi lls don't work 74% of time over a year. States of Georgia and South Carolina ahead of NYS on Solar Arrays. Open Georgia Attachment | has attachment |
| MARY,SMEY | I oppose the climate councils plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy. This will burden all New Yorkers especially those in rural communities. I say no to hiking energy costs, we are already suffering enough with inflation and the burden this administration has put on working families. | ||
| Alan,Rabs | I suffer from asthma and have heart disease one of my teen daughters recently started using an inhaler. Our home smells like smoke every day in the winter and every weekend in the summer from our wood burning neighbors. One has a fireplace insert wood burning stove and he’s burning unseasoned wood as I watched him cut down host trees and stack them on the side of the house in September. My health is greatly impacted. My lungs are in pain and inhalers and pills do not help. I told this neighbor that his fumes make me and my children sick as it triggers our asthma and he has refused to stop burning and even antagonized me by saying he’s gonna cut up some more wood. I have bit fond any support from the town or DEC or EPA They all said they can’t do anything. He’s a volunteer firefighter so calling in the summer with smoke complaints does nothing. He gets special treatment. Please ban wood burning in residential homes that are not more that 50ft away from each other. Help those with asthma and heart does ease not have to suffer so someone can save a few bucks burning wood without the causing harm to their neighbor. In this case the lease is protecting him. There are days where he sees me and then goes into his home and turns the heat up because he knows his fumes go right into my home and harm me. Please, please, please, help. | ||
| Mark,Crouse | The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most proven law of Physics. It basically states that a net loss of energy is inherent in any process. Between the energy lost in the resistance of long distance delivery; the lack of reliable generation in both solar and wind due to weather; the energy required for maintenance; the fossil fuels required to manufacture, transport, and install as well as dispose of the wind turbines and solar panels, it is impossible for the objectives to be met. They are both excellent options for supplementing gas, oil and coal, but they are impractical as the primary, or only source of electricity. | ||
| Kurt,Thomas | Buffalo Industrial Chemicals | The ongoing push of manmade climate change and its goal to confiscate wealth from our nation is a globalist UN based scam and needs to be fought against by every American citizen who is now conscience of this agenda. I am one of those people. Corporate executives who fall in line with this New World Order goal shall be called out and identified and removed from their positions. Kurt Thomas President Buffalo Industrial Chemicals | |
| Brian ,Felicita | I have reviewed the draft scoping plan and have numerous concerns. The theme throughout the entire plan is that NY needs to implement more state wide mandates to all their citizens to control nearly every aspect of normal life. This will drive up the costs for almost everything that is consumed by normal individuals. There are many wish list items that state citizens must transition away from transportation or home heating they have been accustomed to without any plans to compensate them for the increased costs this will add. In addition many of the items envisioned to be viable replacements are not feasible at the moment. There are almost no offerings for heavy duty or off road vehicles that are ZEV but the scoping plan says they must be adopted regardless of the technology being viable or not. This is not the way things should be mandated from the state and it will only cause residents to move to other states with less onerous restrictions. The power grid transition also seems to not have been well thought out as evidenced by the brown/black outs in California recently and the extremely high energy costs in much of Europe that have an over-reliance on non-dispatchable resources. Implementing this plan again will drive costs up and make the whole system unreliable, but NYS does not take this into account on how residents will be able to pay for this. In conclusion the scoping plan is over-reliant on technology or systems that are not available. No legislation should be passed unless the technology is proven and the state subsidizes or compensates citizens that are forced to replace existing energy sources. | ||
| Howard ,Boise | Can't you politicians find something better to do than harass the rural areas in this state? Leave our alternative heat sources ALONE, we have enough trouble trying to pay taxes on our property and put food on the table. Knock it off and do what you were voted into office for. Seems like we are easier to pick on because we are the MINORITY in this state. Keep your city agendas in the cities and leave the rural areas alone, you don't seem to be doing US any favors. | ||
| William,Freitag | Longo Construction | To Whom It May Concern, In regards to the rumor making the rounds about the possible elimination of wood burning heating systems for homes. As an upstate resident who has heated my home with wood for near 40 years I find this distressing. The financial impact impact, on a ban to wood heating, would be devastating, and nearly financially impossible especially to many fixed income homes. Burning wood for fuel has both its good and bad points I will admit, yet the abrupt impact of a ban, would prove extraordinarily harmful to many. And although I do support changes to be made that would help impact the environment quality, I believe that they should be phased in during a lengthy period in order to minimize their impact. Higher efficiency wood stoves alone could make a dramatic impact just by itself. I entreat you to think carefully of all the ramifications on this particular subject. For many heating with wood, is a bread and butter issue. And for those of us that do, we would still like to participate with the environmental issues, but in a more phased in and economical methodology. But a total ban on burning wood is a stretch many can not, and will not accept. Yet still there is a willingness among many of us, to work towards a common goal. | |
| Joe,Kiesecker | We cannot afford to upgrade heating systems to fit your agenda deadline. You're already killing us with record high inflation and fuel prices. | ||
| George,Reece | New York Power Authority (Retired) | I worked in the renewable energy industry for over 30 years.... Where do you plan on getting all this clean electricity from? How do you plan on beefing up the power grid overnight to handle a giant increase in load? You are only going to create Texas & California type electric problems here .... We Will NEVER be able to heat all our houses in NY with electricity. This is one of the most STUPID and CHILDISH proposals I have EVER laid my eyes upon...We need to stop listening to brain addled adolescents.... And that obviously is the people who make up this council.... If you need someone who knows about the electric industry to talk some sense into these dreamers GIVE ME A CALL | |
| SCOTT,EARSING | This is crazy! You people are nuts. You are so lucky you party is in charge. When the republicans get back in -which will happen, then this will all get cancelled. This plan will eliminate jobs in NY ie: wholesalers and every HVAC contractor job with the elimination of natural gas but it’s ok with you because you think your saving the planet. Of course the electrical grid can’t handle the extra load requirements and solar is expensive. I’m going to let every group I know that will be affected by these stupid ideas, to write and call there NY Represenative and say no to this stupid idea. | ||
| Paul,Gryga | In transitioning from gas, paying for 12 months of Gas Delivery Basic Service while using no gas service is an issue. I had a similar problem back in the 1990's when my apartment went from all electric to gas heat, National Grid would not drop the Delivery Basic Service Charge even though no gas was being used 6 months out of the year. So now in my current apartment if I switching to all electric from gas hot water and gas heat the Gas Delivery Basic Service charge should then be dropped. The overarching problem of how is the electricity going to be generated without fossil fuel needs to be solved before the transition of consumers starts, those sources need to be built first before cutting off gas supplies to consumers. | ||
| Pierre,Chagnon | Chairman, Chautauqua County Legislature | I appreciate the opportunity to submit the following comments regarding the New York State Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. • I appreciate the recognition of Hydro as a Zero Carbon source and its importance to baseload continuous generation • I appreciate the recognition of Nuclear as a Zero Carbon source and its importance to baseload continuous generation • I appreciate the recognition of the potential for Micro-Grids in urban settings • I appreciate the recognition of RNG as a new technology • I feel more focus needs to be placed on energy efficiency, and in particular weatherization • I feel more focus needs to be placed on the impacts on economic development • I feel more focus needs to be placed on co-location of generation and demand to reduce the costs of transmission and the inefficiencies of transmission loss • I feel more focus needs to be placed on distributed generation, and in particular personal generation • I feel more focus needs to be placed on the impacts of economic leakage • I am very concerned about the impacts of Crypto mining facilities • I am concerned about the undue cost burdens on those who can least afford it • I believe there needs to be more planned utilization of low carbon fuels • I believe there needs to be more emphasis on energy reliability • I believe the importance of regional solutions needs to be further considered | |
| elizabeth,reece | This proposal to make NYS eliminate natural gas, propane, oil, gasoline etc. from use in out daily lives, whether it's home heating to running industries, is juvenile and short sighted at best. While making the environment healthier and cleaner is a noble cause, only an unexperienced, over-indulged, entitled child would even propose a solution such as this. We've evolved over time into a much cleaner society who understands that diversity in energy choices is ESSENTIAL to having life run as smoothly as possible. We DO NOT have the infrastructure in place to accomplish the goals established in this plan and it would take years and trillions of dollars to overhaul everything we have established. Natural gas, especially, is an extremely clean and relatively cost effective way to heat homes. I think the perfect example of how these knee jerk "solutions" to problems are TERRIBLE ideas is the ban on plastic bags for retail stores. We moved to plastic bags because it wasn't "environmentally friendly" to be cutting down massive quantities of trees to make bags and the plastic bags are reusable for many things, not to mention more user friendly and durable. PLEASE stop catering to and caving into these whining extremists who demand that everyone conform to THEIR reality and THEIR demands which are not well thought out or considerate of all the consequences involved | ||
| Judy,Philllips | Don't you dare discontinue the private use of natural gas. | ||
| Mark,Williams | This entire plan is a recipe for economic disaster. NY is taking a very extreme position on climate change. From what I understand, NY CO2 emissions are about .4% of global emissions. Liberal legislators are running around Albany like their hair is on fire. IMO, they are wiling to destroy our NY economy in order to drive .4% of global emissions to zero. Residents of NY are going to have to pay for expensive upgrades to their electrical service and heating systems. Many homes do not have the extra electrical service to support replacing their stoves, hot water heaters, gas dryers and gas furnaces to electric. Then there is the additional amperage needed to install EV chargers. A resident who has all gas appliances will need an additional 140 amps for 100% electrification of a home and EV. I am sure that low income residents will get financial help but middle income residents will just be harmed by this plan. Air source heat pumps are not up to the cold weather in upstate NY so residents will likely not have comfort in their homes. These air source heat pumps are much more expensive to operate in existing homes than a conventional 95% efficient furnace. Another issue is the uncertainty created by the 2019 climate plan. What if a gas furnace wears out before they are banned from being sold. Will we be able to expect that a gas furnace with a 20 year life will be able to operate for the useful life of the appliance? Businesses will likely be harmed as well. NY is likely to lose even more residents because people cannot afford to live here. Retirees like myself will not be able to afford the obnoxiously high cost of living in this state. It just gets worse each year. The carbon tax will make things even more expensive when it is eventually passed. | ||
| Mary,beadnell | The north country people are struggling to make ends meet now. Raising their taxes to implement this plan of eliminating all current energy resources will only drive the people further into the ground. Until they have a plan that will not break the backs of these hard working people I say put this idea on hold. | ||
| Rose,Oropallo | resident | Electrifying our homes, cars etc. has devastating health effects. Sitting in an electric car is equivalent to low level radiation in a cockpit of a plane. It is EMF and low level radiation horrible fo one's health. (As is the 5G they just activated nationwide on Jan 19, 2022!) The batteries take 100 years to disintegrate and are horrible for earth. I suggest a book that should be required reading for everyone on this committee and in the world. It is called "The Invisible Rainbow," by Arthur Firstburgh. You will be amazed at the information everyone on this panel needs to become familiar with. https://www.google.com/search?q=The+electric+rainbow+by+Arthur+firstburgh&oq=The+electric+rainbow+by+Arthur+firstburgh&aqs=chrome..69i57.7903j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I read the entire draft. They want to reduce oil, gas and propane use by 40% by 2030. (That is only in only 8 years away). It is rumored that they will eliminate wood combustion in the North Country. Don't think they won't! If you don't believe that can happen, they have already done this in California. My daughter lives there. We purchased a wood stove for her two years ago. She was not allowed to install it. Only those who had them were grand fathered. Wood burning is now illegal in Petaluma CA. They can do this folks! They want to eliminate oil, gas and propane by 85% by 2050. They want to "electrify" our homes, cars, and all those toys our North Country so enjoys. This is serious and needs immense push back NOW! While we all want a cleaner earth, fossil fuels are natural, electricity is not. I received my last electric bill to the tune of 695.00 for one month. I have solar and geothermal to boot!. I called NYSEG. Our kilowatt cost went from 4 cents per kilowatt to 14.5 cents in one billing cycle. They are robbing us blind. My bill quadrupled in one month. Imagine being forced to use total electric for our every need? These bureaucrats are just greasing palms when they come up with these "green plans!" | |
| Paul,Rieth | I am 72 years old and living on a fixed income. I have a gas fired boiler system to heat my house, a gas fired hot water tank and a gas fired cooktop stove. I recently had my power box replaced and have space for only one more circuit breaker (115 V). The proposed ban on replacement of natural gas appliances and equipment in existing homes as set out in the draft scoping plan is just plain nuts. The first thing I would be forced to do is increase the power being supplied to the house and then change my power box to allow for all of the 220 V circuit breakers that I will be needing in the future. Natural gas is clean burning, in tremendous supply and relatively inexpensive. Until of course the politicians got involved and messed things up. Don't do this to NYS residents. | ||
| Francis W.,Pratt | In a word: NO! | ||
| Elizabeth ,Kielma | I know it’s important to consider the future, but have you considered the present? As an example, how is someone in the Buffalo, NY area, where we can get 7 feet of snow, supposed to heat their home in the freezing winter with solar panels covered by feet of snow? In a home that has multiple vehicles how can you charge 3 cars at a time so everyone can get to work the next day? The cost of using electricity for everything would be outrageous!!! Also, as seen in Texas, windmills are not reliable, and also are not environmentally friendly. As for appliances, gas stoves cook better than electric ones. Lastly, investment in communities disproportionately impacted by climate change? We have HEAP to help lower income people, and my taxes are too high as it is. I think our tax dollars should be spent on research, but for RELIABLE, Inexpensive options, not what is stated. Also, how do you expect to power everything on an already overstressed power grid? | ||
| Doug,Baldwin | This is an ambitious but thorough plan, unfortunately the sort the state (and world) needs now. It has lots of parts that all work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while spreading the burden of doing so over all the stakeholders - taxpayers, consumers, producers, polluters, etc. Because it has so many parts it's probably fragile, i.e., altering any part is likely to affect, and weaken, many others. So I urge moving it forward as given. | ||
| Robert ,Potochniak | The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers who are already suffering and create greater economic burden for all . Cutting off a dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. This must not be forced down the throats of NY’ers and will only force more people and businesses to leave the state. | ||
| Ellen,Farmer | NO to eliminating new natural gas services to residents and businesses - and eliminate gasoline -automobile sales | ||
| Dave ,Bailey | I am 100% against any federal state or local government enforcing these ridiculous green energy requirements, I believe that the private sector will create green and energy efficiency on its own as technolgy adavances,. Forcing something that is not ready will cause extreme hardship, ask Texas. | ||
| Josh,Lipsman | 17. There should be economy-wide carbon pricing, specifically a carbon fee and dividend program. 20. There should be robust assistance for local governments on a shoe-string to implement meaningful changes both intragovernmentally and withing their communities. | ||
| Robert ,Savage | Please reconsider your goals and objectives and their impact on various aspects in the life of the average New Yorker. It is important to be concerned about the quality of our atmosphere and to take appropriate steps to ensure a healthy stable environment. There must also be equal concern to ensure You’re not making it more difficult to earn a living and support a family in New York. Higher energy costs are already making life difficult for those people. There is a strong possibility that higher and less reliable energy costs will not only impact families but also cause industries dependent on cheap reliable energy to flee New York to other venues. Our abundant supply of natural gas should should be available and utilized extensively along with our nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future until technology can provide clean, reliable non fossil fuel alternatives. Today’s solar and wind alternatives , although continuing to improve, are not ready to become our primary energy resource. Too many people are already leaving New York for a variety of reasons. Don’t provide one more. | ||
| Robert ,Savage | Please reconsider your goals and objectives and their impact on various aspects in the life of the average New Yorker. It is important to be concerned about the quality of our atmosphere and to take appropriate steps to ensure a healthy stable environment. There must also be equal concern to ensure You’re not making it more difficult to earn a living and support a family in New York. Higher energy costs are already making life difficult for those people. There is a strong possibility that higher and less reliable energy costs will not only impact families but also cause industries dependent on cheap reliable energy to flee New York to other venues. Our abundant supply of natural gas should should be available and utilized extensively along with our nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future until technology can provide clean, reliable non fossil fuel alternatives. Today’s solar and wind alternatives , although continuing to improve, are not ready to become our primary energy resource. Too many people are already leaving New York for a variety of reasons. Don’t provide one more. | ||
| Robert,Nolan | This massive 2019 NYS legislation which would limit or eliminate carbon based fuels is a disaster in the works. Man made climate change is a Marxist hoax. I’m old enough to remember National Geographic articles warning about the coming ice age, this was later followed by man made “ global warming “, now we talk about “ climate change “. If this legislation gets implemented, I’m leaving the state, I’m sure with hundreds of thousands of other productive taxpayers. This senseless and misguided legislation will put the final nails in the coffin of our socialist utopia here in New York. | ||
| Duane,Morton | The council does not seem to include the expansion of nuclear generation of electricity. Nuclear plants should be added near where the demand is highest. By locating the plants near the use, there would be a great reduction of power lines that use valuable land for other types of generation like windmills. The footprint for nuclear generation per kilowatt is much smaller than solar or wind. The GHG Emissions chart does not have nuclear on your chart. The council has taken the approach to only restrict and regulate. A more positive approach would be to augment and promote the types of activities that would reduce GHG. The reduction of wood burning in upstate areas is totally wrong. First wood is a renewable energy source. Some areas of the country have horrible forest fires which are fueled by areas that have not been cleaned up by the culling of forest of the low grade trees. The NYS DEC is now proposing burning off areas of the Adirondacks to reduce high hazard areas. In this example there would be large amounts of pollutants with out any benefit to people. Also there are improvements to wood burning that are much better in getting more beneficial BTU's and way much better than a forest fire. The plan's approach is based on estimates and assumptions which could be very misleading. In your findings I could not find any studies on how shading by solar panel effects the normal growth of plants, grasses and trees. These green plants have some bearing on the natural cycle of absorbing carbon dioxide. Also I could not find any data on the effects on wildlife because of wind and solar generation. The estimated cost of inaction vs action will be more than $90 billion, has no facts to back that up. Has the full cost of creating some of these power sources been factored in? Why use a 20 yr cycle rather than a 100 year cycle? The answer is because, as stated in the report the numbers are higher in a 20yr measure. The plan also mentions that there would be | ||
| Yvonne,Miller | While parts of this I support, I DO NOT support a ban on our wood burning stove to heat our home. NO, NO, NO, NO WAY!!!!! We cannot barely afford to pay our bills now, and if we had to heat with electric or fuel oil, or propane, we would not be able to make it. We have a very limited income and just would not be able to heat our home at all. We get our firewood by selectively harvesting wood from our woodlot here at our home. We take all of the dead and/or diseased wood that we need each season, which is called a selective harvest. This has opened up the canopy of our woods, and let an incredible new growth of seedlings to take off and thrive. It is a sustainable way to heat our home....I will never support a ban on our burning wood to heat our home.... | ||
| Thomas,Bieda | It's time to get going before it's too late - Some programs will be great, some not so good - we wont know unless we try - things can be changed/fixed as we go along - one thing is for sure, if all we do is talk about making things better, things will never get better - Do Something! | ||
| Jeffrey,Everitt | Dear Counsel, with so much time spent on reducing carbon as soon as possible, I have not heard from anyone or any agency on how we are going to replace fossil fuels. The concept of reduced carbon emissions is worth perusing but electricity is the only option. Who has figured out where enough electricity will come from to replace fossil fuels? The technology does not exist regardless of hydro, wind, and solar available to us today. If I am wrong please tell me where the vast supply of electricity will come from and how it will be manufactured before you continue to reduce the use of oil and gas. Regards, Jeff | ||
| David,Rood | The idea of totally eliminated fossil fuels such as natural gas and gasoline and replacing it with electric only via wind and solar power is not a good idea. The idea of going all electric is not feasible in the areas that we live in. If the power goes out how are people supposed to heat and light their homes? Not being able to use our portable or whole house generators is stupid. Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy and is readily available. If you do away with it totally the economy will suffer because of lost jobs. Same goes for the oil industry.Totally electric vehicles in the Northeast is not a smart idea. The electric grid cannot handle the demand now and by adding all the extra demand it will not be able to keep up no matter how many wind farms an solar panels you use. As for gasoline for our cars our cars have become more efficient and are polluting less. If we are forced to go to all electric in our homes and autos it will be a financial catastrophy. People cannot afford to dispose of their appliances and vehicles and go out and buy all electric ones. Incorporating wind and solar into energy production along with natural gas is the smarter way to go. Alternative fuels need to be developed to operating our vehicles rather than having to convert to all electric. This needs to be thought out more especially since our mass transit system in this state and country stinks. | ||
| PAUL,BOMBARD | NUTECH ELECTRICAL ENTR. | I have no problem with "green" projects. However, New York pushing too hard and too fast. What we need to do is bring green online but also tap the resources we have under the ground. That's creates thousands of new, high paying jobs an creates a new source of tax income which should lower the homeowner's taxes. Which in turn bring people TO New York! In the last 2 years New York has lost roughly 350,000 people to other States. That's not by accident! | |
| Richard,Hanney | your plans to make automobiles all electric and make our homes all electric will cause a shortage of electricity . converting a home heated by natural gas to one heated by electricity is a very expensive job. also heating a home with electric is far more expensive than gas. the end result of these plans will be people going without heat so they can eat. | ||
| Sean,Sullivan | Stop worshiping a Creation, namely Earth. Climate changes moment to moment and what is discussed is pollution, rather than the natural cycle of climate change. Avery & Singer demonstrate climate change is natural, not man made in their book: ?Unstoppable Global Warming?: ?Every 1,500 Years? Avery, Singer below is taken from Amazon book description webpage. "Singer and Avery present-in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence-the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with the natural physical records found in ice cores, seabed sediment, cave stalagmites, and tree rings, Unstoppable Global Warming argues that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the dyriving force in the current warming trend. Trillions of dollars spent on reducing fossil fuel use would have no effect on today's rising temperatures. The public policy key, Singer and Avery propose, is adaptation, not fruitless attempts at prevention. Further, they offer convincing evidence that civilization's most successful eras have coincided with the cycle's warmest peaks. With the added benefit of modern technology, humanity can not only survive global climate change, but thrive." | ||
| greg,White | Whites farm Supply | Agriculture remains one of New York's No. 1 industry. In fact, today's farm economy generates more than $4 billion worth of annual economic activity statewide and provides a livelihood for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. We can't afford to forget it. What will this do to this industry? | |
| Theresa,Terry | Please keep focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To help reduce the cost pressure on families, provide relief for childcare and tax incentives to purchase replacements for gas and oil to renewable energy such as solar panels, electric fueling stations, etc. Not only for families, but for businesses and federal and state buildings and vehicles. | ||
| Kathryn ,Cote | I can’t afford to change the way I heat my home or the car I drive. You can cram this down our throats but you are just going to drive more people out of NY. I can barely afford the current cost. | ||
| Peter,Lew | Homeowner | The plan and scope of this agenda has no consideration for the well being of the people of NYS by not offering this as a vote platform. Not only will this create an economic disaster but also infringement on civil liberties. Too much too fast too Draconian! Leave household decisions to the property / home / business owner , Government is only as good as the people . A mass exodus of residence and extinction of free will is at stake . | |
| John,Clark | I’m not interested in any debate. I distrust politicians who play at governance. They rarely make decisions based upon the needs of the people. As we, humanity, face Climate Disruption we see the same old games being run on regular folks by people representing parties and corporations. We are already seeing the costs of our piss poor stewardship of the land, sea, and air that are THE necessities of our existence. We do not need any of the constructs of modernity (though I’ll admit clean water in and dirty water treatment are nice). We evolved over time and have come to believe many myths regarding our ability to exist without all of our so called needs being met yet we existed prior to every last one of them. Break the mental block placed on regular folks by those concerned with market share at the expense of our grandkids and you may wake them from their stupor. You won’t. There’s an election to be won. | ||
| Sue,Kowalski | 300+ pages is too many for me to read so I will just summarize here. You are going way to fast putting this plan into action. Already our electric bills have doubled from just one month ago. Our oil bill is double from last year. The gas price is double from last year. The lawn mover guy just increased me by 62.5% for the coming season stating the gas prices. Anyone who provides a service just passes their increase cost onto us and it is strangling us and no one cares. Living as a full time resident in a rural area is difficult. I just got a new car in 2020 after having one for 12 years. It take gasoline only. I am 66 years old and our doctors are in Albany, NY. Typically every rural person saves errands and makes stops along the way when they have to go to Albany so they don't waste gas or time. I am very worried that if I am forced to have an electric car that I will become stranded if there are road closures/traffic accidents/snow storms and also I will not be able to do my errands because I won't have enough of a charge. I am worried that I will be a target for crime while I am waiting for my car to recharge so I can get back home. The actual mileage from my house to my specialist doctor is 120 miles round trip in Albany. Going a little further to a different specialist is 140 miles. My gas vehicle goes 500 miles. If I am forced to get an electric vehicle I will be standing out in the rain or freezing cold at my age waiting hours to charge my car to get back home. Rural people are poorer people to start with so I don't get the energy equity. We have always struggled to keep our heads above water. Please lower our prices to what they were in Dec. 2021 for electric and please lets increase the oil pipeline output. Also, it is imperative when you live in a climate with barely any winter sun and -20 degrees in the winter to be able to supplement with wood & a wood stove. It means survival in any situation when we lose power. I don't want to freeze to death | ||
| Claudina,Ashelman | This plan is completely wrong headed. At this time the U.S. needs to maximize our own energy production, it is not the time to mandate "green" energy. Certainly the country can look for ways to reduce emissions but to further harm the middle class and lower classes with higher prices is very unfair. It is not "just". Our country is more capable of producing fossil fuels in an environmentally friendly way than Iran, Russia, China and all the other countries that hate democracy. We should not get our energy from those countries when we can produce it here and have left over for other friendly countries. I and many other people remain unconvinced that so called green energy is really green. Where are all those batteries going to go? What about discarded solar panels and windmills? What about the birds? I have had solar panels on my roof for 7 years-it doesn't produce much at all. And I am being told to eliminate trees to keep them functioning? How does that help? We need more trees and less ideology around energy. And who is getting rich off of this mandated change? | ||
| Fred,Garvin | Where will all of this electricity come from if you abandon fossil fuels? Electricity isn't free, and solar is a joke and will not supply even half of the energy required. China and India and the other 3rd world toilet countries have no desire to abandon fossil fuels or have kicked the can down the road for 30 to 50 years Why would anyone not use facts in making a monumental decision like this. Are you really this stupid? If you are then you have no business working in government. Maybe you are just too stupid to acknowledge facts and reality. The solution is vote republican. | ||
| Joseph,Bidwell | Green energy is not affordable. Enacting this plan would be catastrophic for the people in this state. The effects this plan would have on the climate would be negligible while crippling the economy.China is adding more coal plants by the week. This is a waste of time and money. | ||
| Charles,Sharrow | Never in our wildest dreams would we have ever dreamed that the Political left would veer so far off the rails of normalcy. The initiatives you are proposing will mandate that every rural family spend thousands of dollars that most simply do not have. Every working person in a rural community relies on personal vehicles for their mode of transportation. Every person relies on personal vehicles to obtain food. For those of us Outside of city environments, who do not have access to mass transit, this ideology would create an immense financial burden that I fear many would not be able to overcome. Your plan would mandate that we replace any gas powered vehicle with expensive ,electric only vehicles. Your plan would require retooling the existing heating infrastructure of millions of homes. Your plan would eliminate the use of Wood burning stoves that so many North Country citizens rely on. Your plan would erase millions of jobs that support all of those above industries. Being that these initiatives will affect mostly rural communities, and that rural communities are mostly Republican, I cannot help but wonder if these initiatives are Politically motivated. You may say that "Hey, the voters voted to pass the clean water clean air act", and you would be right. Who doesn't want clean water and clean air ? BUT I believe that if every person knew what you had in mind, to enforce that act, it would have overwhelmingly failed. When considering these initiatives, it is important that you consider ALL citizens of NYS. It is becoming obvious that you could care less about those that live outside of urban environments. I pray that Democrats pay at the polls for their extremist ideologies. People are starting to wake up. | ||
| Gary,Granger | We all want clean air, water and healthy planet. Environmental goals are worth pursuing, but this green agenda should be carefully considered in a time of economic hardships. It's too expense to do all at once. Gas is over $4 a gallon, home heating has hit all time highs. Stock market is tumbling. Please these costs can be managed better. It is irresponsible to start an initiative of this size and magnitude without considering the real-world impacts and costs on the people of this state. | ||
| Ron,Burdick | Have all the long term costs been factored in? How much to implement plus everything makes waste. How to recycle or even dispose of said equipment has worse effects than oil. This is now the wrong time to implement it as costs are way too high. Maybe people come here for this. Maybe many more leave because of it. | ||
| Barton,Schoenfeld | I greatly appreciate the work that the CAC is doing, but it does not appear that NY will be able to attain its climate goals without without economy-wide action. Carbon pricing, with a return of proceeds to citizens, remains the most transparent and effective way to reduce emissions. The program could easily be designed to benefit lower and middle income residents of NY. I urge the CAC to give strong consideration to setting a price on carbon, with rebates to NYS citizens. | ||
| Andrew,Hartley | United Methodist | Hello. Thanks for a comprehensive scoping plan; I can tell a huge amount of work has gone into it. I'm glad that it includes economy-wide strategies, because I think such strategies can be very effective. The strategy I support is to put a fee on greenhouse gas emissions, & to return the collected fees, in equal shares, to citizens in NYS. The fee should start small & increase gradually. Returning the fee to citizens will ensure that needy families do not suffer from higher energy prices. I appreciate your considering my comments. | |
| MICHAEL ,MASON | The whole idea is stupid. We cannot afford to do this it will hurt everyone. | ||
| David,Thornhill | As a retired resident of New York and on a set income Iam dealing with rising cost. This legislation will skyrocket my cost of heating my home and fueling my vehicle. Iam against this legislation! | ||
| Michael,Lingle | No changes to taxes and do not eliminate natural gas from any new construction | ||
| David,Anderson | I support the use and expansion of renewable green energy but many families across upstate New York currently rely on propane, heating oil, and natural gas to heat their homes during the winter. We need these reliable fuels to fill the gaps that exist with new, green energies. We should not deny anyone access to traditional fuel options while we look at common sense strategies for other alternative energy sources. Albany’s push to eliminate New Yorkers' access to critical energy sources at the very time we are being squeezed by inflation, rising home heating costs, soaring electric bills, and gas prices 39 percent higher than a year ago, is a bad idea. These proposals by the Climate Action Council pose unrealistic economic challenges and raise serious questions as to who will pay for the new, required heating systems and appliances. Tax payers would shoulder these higher costs while facing fewer energy choices. Neither outcome is acceptable. | ||
| John,Bottiroli | The Idea of elimination of fossil fuels is way to early in the development of alternative energies. Wind is not at all carbon neutral- , Solar is worse when you look at all the cost involved in the production of the components of any solar system. If all the USA goes carbon neutral and the rest of the world does , as it does now, ignores in reality the idea of reduction of carbon ue, we only hurt the citizens of this country- We need to look t the alternatives, BUT NOT RUSH INTO Adoption of any changes until the TRUE COST is known | ||
| James,Miller | As property and school taxes are going up now heating oil prices going up. As a retired person you are slowly going to force me to look for ways to get social services so I can afford to live in this state. I served in the military for 20 years and had hoped to have a enjoyable life instead of setting down everyday and looking how I can cut corners to live. | ||
| Robert ,Matarese | Your plans appear grandiose, your goal as stated are lofty however the substance as to how we get from point A to point B is sorely lacking. Removing a less expensive form of energy while at the same time not offering a viable alternative is not a plan that will be embraced by the average citizen. In the short term, this will make living in New York expensive and will therefore drive the population out faster than it is leaving now. In the long term, New York will become a state in which only those who can weather this transition (wealthy) will be long term residence. I have lived in New York my entire life as have four generations of my family prior to me. Based on the current path my State is moving, my family may be the last. I don’t believe we are that unique in this aspect. I hope my concerns are at least listened to, who knows maybe common sense will prevail. However, I am not really hopeful. | ||
| William,Quinn | None | New York does not need to take this kind of climate action. The human impact on climate change is minimal. Time after time, temperature models predicting catastrophe did not come true. The world had higher temperatures than today during the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period, when no fossil fuels were used. The current climate warming is coming mostly from the sun, and is natural. We do not need to shut down modern life over this. The proposed scope would make New York a terrible place to live. It almost appears to be the goal – get everybody to move out. The worries about climate change, climate action and climate justice come from people who, like many Americans, have had it very good for a long time (generations). It makes people “feel better”, but is not needed, and actually makes life harder, for no reason. This is justified in part by making people walk, instead of enjoy modern conveniences ? That’s terrible. Americans, and everyone else, should have freedom and joy !! Or as Thomas Jefferson said, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This scope proposes a dictatorial, totalitarian state instead. This proposal should be discarded. | |
| Kathleen,Crandall | I am asking the committee to reconsider these ideas that not even reasonable for the common person. I am a senior citizen,still working just to pay for my drug and health benefits. There is no possible way I can afford an electric car much less charging it,replacing the battery is expensive. Also ,recycling the battery is a problem I cannot afford a new heating system. Alot of people will be burning wood for heat. Just think of the hardships you are imposing on people. It is endless. Thankyou | ||
| Kurt,Mulson | Concerned Citizens | National Gas usage for heating and electric cogeneration energy production is the most clean efficient energy known to man. Emissions are minimal and there is no current data indicating impact to environment. Studies show this is best source of energy. Further geologists determine the US has over 150 years worth of natural gas reserves. Until this proposed “ GreenEnergy” fantasy is engineered to actual functionality completed with electrical transmission and delivery infrastructure, I highly recommend common sense application of continued fossil fuel usage. | |
| Jill,Grunewald | Self | Dear Senator Stec, Please do your research regarding costs of green energy. Fossil fuel have not only been costly to our environment but to state and federal taxpayers who consistently pay these corporations’ subsidies, tax dollars used to cleanup our waterways and cities when there are leakages and fires during pipeline, train, truck and ship transport and drilling, and healthcare for those who contract asthma and cancer from fossil fuel pollutants. Please reply if you disagree with my science and I will gladly send you many of the thousands of credible studies and articles my debate students have researched. The total costs of using fossil fuels overwhelmingly outnumber green energy costs from start to finish. | |
| Robert,Murphy | This is the most ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars to date. I have heard mention of stopping people from burning wood to heat their homes. They can't afford to use other sources. You idiots. This while NYC apartment buildings burn sludge. Biden has made this country dependent on our enemies for oil. Has that made is greener? Does Russian gas burn cleaner? Start following through with these ridiculous plans and the people who remain in NY will be forced to leave because of the skyrocketing costs to live here. | ||
| Sharon,Kistner | I am adamantly OPPOSED to ‘green’ policies that are being proposed. The elimination or limiting of gas, oil, propane energies will bankrupt the individual/families throughout the state. It is unconscionable to expect the average citizen can survive these initiatives. The planet is NOT in imminent danger if we continue to use natural gas and oil resources. Wind, solar and other ‘green’ resources are unreliable and costly. I believe the majority of NYers agree with me that you are overstepping your boundaries on this issue. | ||
| WILLIAM,KOWALSKI | Dr. William Kowalski | I read thru the list above and I have read enough books to know man is not the cause for climate change it is a cult! I am writing because between the democrats in Washington and New York they are reducing all the flow or oil a renewable product from our society and driving the cost of home heating oil , gas and fuel for the cars up so high. Since their goal is to eliminate it REMOVE ALL TAXES FROM FUEL, so that the state can learn to live without that money as your constituents are learning to live with less due to the democratic administrations. Next problem is the fact that if you commit a crime the person gets let out without bail. Our state is high in crime and the major cities are dangerous yo live in. The big apple has become the rotten apple! Please do something positive for the state | |
| Joyce,Samonek | As a Citizen of the US and resident of NY State, I am among those who live by the wage and salary guides posted by the State as well as being a Social Security recipient. I fail to understand why the millionaires budget these ideas to fit their budget, NOT OUR BUDGETS!! | ||
| Richard,Yeager | People who believe there is public transportation everywhere need to get away from their city desks more often and experience the area north of Exit 20, I-87. People who live in the rural areas of New York have to drive their vehicles, drive farther, drive longer, to obtain essentials. Imagine driving 30-45 minutes to get groceries. That happens here. People who live in the rural areas of New York have to drive their vehicles, drive farther, drive longer, to work good jobs. Imagine driving 60 minutes to get to work. That happens here. People who want to live on electricity alone and force their choice onto others need to experience living in the rural areas of New York. The cost of living with electricity alone in the rural areas of New York is tremendously expensive. Want to enjoy seeing large areas of trees cut down for those electrical lines? You'll see that in the rural areas of New York. Want to drive more people out of New York? Force your plan onto everyone and watch them leave for other states. There is nothing wrong with choice. Get out from underneath your bubble. See the real world and you'll understand this mandate, this "plan" to drive people out of New York, is wrong. Keep your choice yours. Do not force it upon others. | ||
| James,Kostran | n/a | Let the climate be the climate. Leave everything about it alone. Anything you do will just increase the costs for everyone, including those who could lease afford it. Earth has been around for billions of years (at least a few million). You will never achieve justice. There is no climate change that can be achieved at any cost. | |
| Peter ,Burke | This is a Socialist solution looking for a problem. This is the sort of government overreach that is driving people to leave New York state and reduce the population. It is also a program that disproportionately affects people of lower income and people of color. I am totally opposed to the whole thing. | ||
| Cb,Toder | Making New York state "net zero by 2030" is a terrible idea. Energy costs in New York are made worse by the State shutting down viable power plants like Indian Point. The so-called "sustainable" methods of producing energy are unreliable and completely unrealistic for the needs of our State. Your plans will impoverish New Yorkers, destroy New York industries and result in a worse standard of living for all New Yorkers. | ||
| Kenneth,Nash | retired | As a retired papermill maintenance manager, I know all to well about energy costs, in industry and at home. After a 45 yr. career, and living in New York state for 67 yrs. I am contantly telling myself it is time to go. The weather is one thing but every time I read about a new law being proposed in Albany, I just shake my head and wonder what planet these people(?) live on. If the New City politicians want to live like that in the city fine, but I wish they would leave us in upstate alone. I know alot of people that heat with wood. I use natural gas and could never afford dead short heat, besides it will NEVER help the climate because all your solar farms and windmills will never power a grid with present day technology. We can vote on all the referendoms in the world and between this and gerrymandering and more we get our nose,s rubbed in the dirt. Thanks for your time | |
| Robert,Deprez | The premise upon which this costly, self destructive plan is based is a fraud. There is no man-made climate change, and elements of your plan will have huge cost and no net benefit to the environment or the people of New York. At best, it is useless, and most of it is hugely damaging, except to the politically well-connected who will receive vast amounts of money stolen from New York residents to despoil the State. | ||
| Michael,Essig | Sustainable Forestry Solutions | Implementing decarbonization initatives for gas as well textile companies investing and facilitating to applying this technology into Carbonization storage solutions incorporating into concrete and hempcrete products to make stronger tensile strength materials with carbonized vesicules making lighter masonry product win win wins for good solutions! Let's go deep regarding fundamental and feasible processes for implementing this technology in efficient means beyond our wildest imagination is what ya'll paid the big bucks for me to go to School for and my work in green technologies bout to level it ever upward NY!! As well focus on implementing State level CCC style returning workforce in NY for invasive species management, critical habitat restoration initatives and all the things for people and planet!! BACK TO GARDEN EVERYONE!!! Sincerely and Sustainably yours!! Michael Essig Sustainable Forestry Solutions Sustainable Sorcerers 845 467 1145 | |
| Bart M,Carrig | Please, I know it's going to hurt and cost, but we need to take action to fight climate change NOW, before it's too late. We need to do this for our children and our future. | ||
| Anna,Rounseville | My husband will regularly go out of his way to save 5-10 cents per gallon. A 55 cent per gallon tax seems excessive just as work is returning to a new normal. He and my son are both essential workers and have worked through this entire pandemic of the last two years. Why would you kick an economy that’s already down? We use energy efficient appliances, and have a small carbon footprint with our modest 1890 house with only 1 car. My guys carpool. We are already making good choices, and we didn’t leave when the exodus happened. Why punish those who stayed? | ||
| Roy,Althiser | You have one agenda and that is climate change regulations driven by big industry and MONEY. any opposing thoughts are totally disregarded. Scientists are found on both sides of this issue. All these regulations put America in a losing position. Our emissions are lower than anywhere else in the world. The cost of these regulations are killing our businesses. I believe climate is cyclical and changes over hundreds of years. You talk about saving the world. Stop the insane regulation we must put America first or our freedoms will disappear. The working class are footing the bill for all of this action. The amount of electricity needed to keep us number one is not sustainable by just winds and solar. Why does California have rolling blackouts? Stop this insanity of control by the elite | ||
| Gordon,Duprey | This plan is just too expensive for most of us. We live paycheck to paycheck now, and with the added expense of these plans, we will certainly lose more money. We just can't continue to pay more and still surivive. | ||
| Matthew,Allen | Ny is crazy expensive to live in. Removing resources is going to make ny that much more expensive. These changes won't make an impact on the environment unless the world is on the same page. All these changes are going to do is make ny lose more citizens and make people poor | ||
| Lori,Thierfeldt | This plan is ludicrous in all respects. National gas is an efficient way to heat coupled with other sources. As was shown recently in Texas and California, solar and wind alone is not enough. I have always thought of myself as environmentally conscious but these “goals” are silly. We have enough gas reserves for a hundred or more years. There is no evidence of climate change. Gasoline cars and emissions far exceed years ago and are carbon footprint is much improved. Mining for lithium is no better for our planet than burning gasoline. We still have to dispose of them and there is the risk of fires from these batteries. | ||
| Debra,Quinn | Dear Senator Stec, I am totally against the proposed Bill to eliminate natural gas and propane hook ups. It has gotten to be minus 33 degrees last month in Constable NY. Today it was 20* here and 42* in NYC. How dare people in NYC decide how we upstate have to heat our homes. We need every source of heat available, to include natural gas, propane, fuel oil, kerosene, wood, coal, pellets, wind, solar and electric. Please do not allow the Green New Deal Progressive Agenda rule the lives of we the people Upstate or the rest of America. My husband and I just bought our new heating/AC system last May to the tune of 17k, my brother just purchased his new coal boiler system for the same amount. My sister and Aunt had all electric years ago. Their bills in winter were between 350 and 800 a month. My Aunt lived in a brand new mobile home. The average income in the North Country is not that high, public transportation is not feasible. Gasoline is already over $4 per gallon. If this happens people will lose their homes and end up on public assistance, food stamps, heap and medicaid. County costs will sky rocket. We are barely getting by with prison closures. These ridiculous people sponsoring ridiculous Bills will be the death of us. It is absolutely no wonder there is a mass exodus of New Yorkers to other states. NYC does not realize they are getting cheap power from the Robert Moses Power Dam that is a half hour from my home. WE DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THIS. Plus Massena Electric that operates an electric Co-op doubts that this can be accomplished here, and they should know. One may say, I won't have to convert my house. However, there will be a decrease in companies servicing this equipment just by the fact that there will be less demand for these companies. Then where will I stand with a new system that I cannot get serviced. Then the loss of jobs from this. I cannot possibly tell you how this has affected me and the people I know. What an absolute disaster. Please help! | ||
| Matt,Banco | This is an over reach. Climate change is not man made - There is a natural eb and flow to the climate . Human impact/existence on earth is but dust in the wind. To think that we humans are able to effect any changes in it will be to our everlasting shame. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and limiting it is the way that the left want to crush it. | ||
| jerry,velesko | You wonder why people are leaving ny ? you are taking away my choice if I want to hook up to gas can not buy gas stoves heaters no more gas engines this not the way do make change . we still need a choice . dont take away our freedom of choice | ||
| S,Myers | I've read weather news for this area from the 1930's that said they had some mild winters, some colder winters, storms,etc. so the climate isn't any different now than it was then. Weather is unpredictable period. To push this on already struggling NY'ers is completely ridiculous. People can't afford to convert their homes to all electric or solar, some of us barely have enough money to make ends meet. As far as electric vehicles, most NY'ers cannot afford the high prices of electric vehicles and most people are not going to be able to trade their gas vehicle in for an electric vehicle without it costing them thousands of dollars.. We already pay enough to live here. It's also very hypocritical to push "green energy" when most politicians fly on private jets all over the country, live in huge homes without solar energy and they themselves drive gas powered vehicles. If the goal is to have more people move out of the state, you're doing well by pushing more proposals like this. Thank you. | ||
| Michael,Smith | I disagree with the ban of natural gas and carbon energy for use in my personal home, as a taxpayer and citizen of New York State. Thank you for the hard work in compiling all 300+ pages. | ||
| Marilee,Abramshe | Renewable energy and public support of initiatives is a good thing. You, however, are going to grind people like me into the ground with your methods. I am exactly the Person who will be hurt by this, a lower middle class New Yorker who is living in a semi rural area in a mobile home. Why? Because it is what I can afford and offered me (pre inflation and the recent 46% electric hikes) a moderate chance of having some safety in retirement as long as I worked part time. This extreme bulldozer method will alter that. You are ensuring, with this plan, that all those like me - and there are a lot of us - will just ALWAYS struggle. I ask myself repeatedly, why do I live here and when, if ever, will we return to moderation? Stop the madness and think before you pass this. | ||
| Theodore ,Clark | Natural gas is the cleanest burning least emission producing fuel that we have and it is very plentiful reliable versus wind and solar power which requires the use of fossil fuels to make it and solar and wind power are unreliable and costly to make with all the natural gas that is available it seems to me that that would be the sensible fuel to be using and not to worry about the greenhouse gases that are produced using dirty energy to make solar power and wind power sincerely Theodore Clark | ||
| James,Missall | While it’s possible to turn New York totally electric, is it practical? Has a comprehensive study been conducted on our statewide power grid sustainability? This would include distribution capacities, security, resistive Electromagnetic emissions, environmental impact studies, and power shedding capability’s. Transmission distribution lines will have to be changed over to superconductors due to higher loading. These generate zero emissions with 98% efficiency. Current aluminum wires would literally melt under the demand due to resistive overloading. Transformers and generators would have to incorporate superconductive windings to accommodate higher capacity, Wind and solar are dependent on weather conditions, making hydroelectric the only form of reliable generation. New York has many waterfalls that could be used to power individual communities independent of the statewide grid. The new infrastructure bill should be used to develop these technologies, run superconducting power lines, together with fiber optic cables creating a private network unaffected by cyber hacking. Although it’s a Nobel cause to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, technology needs to catch up. In the meantime Albany needs to deregulate fossil fuels, especially natural gas and exploration, to lower the consumer price index. If you need someone on the development team for new electrical energy please contact me. | ||
| Angela,Yacovelli | If approved, this will drive more people and businesses out of New York State. This is a terrible plan that will destroy NYS. One more reason why are planning to leave if things don't change by November elections. We do not support this plan! | ||
| Robin,Nye | My comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. The over use of acronyms and abbreviations throughout the document makes reading practically impossible. NYS wants everything we do and rely on to be powered by electricity. The numbers don't make sense to me. 15000MW Wind could be upwards 3000 5MW turbines. How much land for 6000MW solar. 15000MW doesn't meet today's peak load of 19000MW, what happens on a max load day. 3000MW of energy storage means nothing, you need excess capacity recharge the batteries. If you rely on solar to power the grid for all the new electric powered heat pumps and charging all the new electric vehicles there will not be enough to charge the batteries. Do we just stop heating our homes, or charging our cars at night? I was an operator at Ginna station. I know how hard it is to generate 600MW 24/7 365 days a year. Our capacity factor ran in the 90%-95% range. How much wind or sun do you need to meet that. Give wind a generous 50% capacity factor, now you need 6000 5MW turbines to meet your goal, Just watch California ISO graph of solar generation to see how solar works. NY states nuclear plants are getting very old, let alone being shutdown before they reached their end of life, that was a loss of 2600MW from the grid, replaced by natural gas generation I understand. How does that factor into the zero emission plan. All in all I think this document is a pie in the sky dream, an unattainable goal, with NYS citizens bearing the brunt of the huge and not our choice lifestyle changes required. It is my opinion that this document will force us to make changes we don't want (new laws?). I own a 40 foot 5th wheel, I am not going to be able to tow that and enjoy my retirement with an electric powered truck? Imagine going 2 or 300 miles, find a charging station accessible for my RV and then waiting to recharge before continuing on our trip. This is not something I want our state to impose on us. | ||
| Anthony,Kroker | This is totally stupid. Climate action is needed but this plan is extremely short-sighted and ignores the basic needs of ordinary citizens. While many people are struggling to pay bills, this adds an unnecessary burden on many working families. | ||
| Kathy ,Caiola | Stop with the climate change lunacy.this state is already crippled by insane legislation now you want to bring people to their knees! In the 70's we were told an ice age was imminent....now you push this propaganda! It's clear you want the new world order to begin in NY! We need oil and gas! | ||
| Scott,Gresens | The constraints in the current Natural Gas system is limiting business and residents of NYS. We need more pipelines and Natural Gas in order to survive the near future. I'm all for Green Energy, but thats 20-50 years away. In the mean time, we need affordable energy now. | ||
| Laura,Kingdollar | |||
| Diane,Duffney | I believe this plan to go strictly to electric is complete nonsense. It is narrow minded people who make these rules and decide what and how we the people should or shouldn’t do in our own homes. Natural gas is used by all of the people I know and do you know how much electric would cost us monthly if we had to heat with it? Where we live, we have constant power outages and then we have to use a generator to heat our homes until the electric comes back on which can be days. I say NO to this mandate. If you go through with it, I know many families who will have a for sale sign in their yard so they can get out of this overly mandated state. Diane Duffney | ||
| David,Plumley | Targeting Residential Biomass/Biofuels WOOD STOVES on page 68, first paragraph. Unsupported Claim: "...residents increasingly turn to biomass to heat their homes." Unsupported Claim: "EPA estimates the PM2.5 emissions from residential wood heating in New York State, representing 2% of homes, is greater than that from the power generation sector and the entire and transportation sectors combined" Not supported by Reference: "Wood smoke is found in particularly rural areas of the State, and some wintertime smoke impacts are significant." 140 140 Allen, George and Lisa Rector. “Characterization of Residential Woodsmoke PM2.5 in the Adirondacks of New York.” Aerosol and Air Quality Research 20 (2020): 2419-2432. This referenced study 140 supra contains numerous weaknesses and further concludes that wood smoke from residential wood stoves (et. al.) is IN COMPLIANCE: "Despite these PM events, the data indicated that this location was likely in compliance with the current U.S. EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5" | ||
| Jeffrey,Courter | First Presbyterian Church of Forest Hills NY | Dear NYSERDA - As a Christian minister, I fully support all efforts New York is taking to transition off fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind-generated electricity. Due to the urgency of the issue of global warming, we have no time to lose to make changes to our energy consumption. We know that global warming particularly will impact low-income residents of New York. I live in Queens, where residents were drowned in their basement apartments during Hurricane Ida. Hurricanes such as Ida and Sandy will only increase in frequency and destructiveness as global warming increases, and residential areas of low-income housing will bear the brunt of the blows. This is preventable, but only through immediate action and governmental mandates. History has proven that the private sector cannot and will not make sufficient change for the transitions needed from coal, oil and natural gas use. I urge the state to mandate any methods which will lead away from our use of these energy sources, including taxes and mandates. This issue does not only affect the poor - it affects all of us. We all share this planet, rich and poor alike. Acting for the common good affects everyone. Thank you for your efforts towards this end, and for your leadership. May your work be rewarded and blessed. Sincerely, Rev. Jeffrey Courter | |
| Jeff,Straight | First off ,There really is something wrong with some of you that are running this state and this country.Why do you want to run the country into the non existence?Apparently you don't want to hear from the people that you work for or ,You wouldn't make the web address so hard to type.I don't understand how you think that you can just cut out fossil fuels in an instant.You have no alternate energy source in place that will even come close to handling the needs of the state or the country.You need something that is proven to work before you just cut out a proven source.Natural gas is one of the cleanest, cheapest, safest, reliable and abundant sources of energy that we have ,Right here in the state and you want to end it. The cars and trucks produce today are very efficient and clean.an electric vehicle gets maybe 3 or 400 miles per charge under optimal conditions.How far do you think they will go in the cold north winters, with the windshield wipers and heater running?you'll have cars with dead patties all over the roads and people freezing to death.That's if they don't freeze to death in their homes first.This climate change panic is a farce.Your anointed one preached it for eight years ,He and his wife got rich off the American taxpayers and now own a 5 million plus mansion on the coast and another crib on an island.I thought we were going to lose all this coast line years ago? You just keep trying to fix your failed policies with more polices that are sure to fail and make things even worse.Just look what has happened to this country in a years time. Lawyers, Politicians and Liberals have caused great harm to this great country.It has to stop. Have a good time while you are in control because, Hopefully it won't be for very much longer.The state and the country can't stand it. | ||
| Paul ,Lauricella | All of this is insanity. This will bring a substandard life for all people of NY and the country. Whats left of the middle class and the poor will bear the brunt of this environmental cult religion that you are all members of. None of you ruling class will adhere or be affected by this. True climate science is being suppressed and ignored. Wind and Solar are inefficient and expensive. You will be trading one type of mining for another. You will be driving more people and business out of the state to places that have more sane and realistic energy policies. The electric vehicle fad will wane because the technology and the ability of the electric grid to support electric everything is a long way away. May you all be voted out of office and the mental midgets that are appointed purged from the government. | ||
| James,Hull | Winfield Consumer Products | Enough is enough, why dont you just admit you want to force anyone north of Poughkeepsie, to just live in exile. Pathetic, | |
| Lisa,Malone | As much as I love living in Albany, NY, it feels like leaders here are trying to price residents out of the state. High taxes, housing costs and energy bills all contribute to the current outflow of taxpayers to other, more affordable, states. Further increasing these costs seems unconscionable to me. | ||
| Carl,Heilman | I totally agree that things need to be done to reduce the carbon footprint of civilization. However, the footprint of the Adirondack north country and farm lands of NY should be addressed differently from urban, and more densely populated areas of the state. Incomes for many living in the north country are marginal and additional taxes on heating fuels and fuel for vehicles impacts heavily on what people have for daily expenses. The current rise in heating oil and gas already leaves many wondering if they can afford the next tank of oil or gas with the coming below zero temps. Autos are the only way to get supplies, and most can't afford a new electric vehicle. Another issue is battery life in north country winter cold which may come at any time each year between November and April. Residents can't chance being stuck in sub zero temps with families in the car along the road somewhere because the car driving range dropped from 300 miles to 80 miles in sub zero temps. We do need to address climate issues but also need to give consideration to those who have little or no discretionary income and live in an area that makes some requirements a hardship. | ||
| Mary,Whittaker | While I believe there needs to be accountability for all when it comes to addressing climate change, we New Yorkers can not carry the burden alone. The aggressive plan that is proposed will only continue to support the exodus that is currently taking place in NY. With the need to reduce carbon in large cities, namely NYC, focus the tax ramifications there. Increase their city tax and leave upstate out of the equation. The future of NY rest solely on changing who is in control in Albany, and I intend to do everything I can to see that happens. | ||
| Laurie,LaFountain | I strongly object to the proposal to increase taxes on people who heat their homes with natural gas, propane or fuel oil. I also oppose forcing people to purchase electric cars. These proposals would devastate already struggling homeowners in the north country, including thousands of senior citizens who do not have financial means to convert homes to more expensive and less efficient heating systems. Every politician who supports this terrible plan should commit to living for one year in TRUE upstate NY. Spend a year living in the Adirondacks, where the nearest grocery store is 30 minutes away from home. Spend a year living where the temperature drops below zero for weeks on end. Spend a year living in a part of the state where the power goes out for days after a severe storm, and the only way to heat your home is with a gas powered generator. You politicians need to walk a mile in the shoes of your constituents before making your decisions. | ||
| David,Lafleur | It’s to bad this lovely state has been ruined by corrupt leadership. Misappropriation of tax dollars funding projects that don’t help the poor and middle class. Forcing people into making tough choices regarding leaving a state they love or finding a place to live that they can afford. People are leaving! People have become trained to accept your welfare and have lost a desire to work. If they go back to work they lose the crumbs you have made them dependent upon. Small business in NY is dying, the state is dying. Open your eyes! Crime is becoming a horrible reality. It all ties in together. Governance in this state is a disappointment for us all! | ||
| Dorothy,Grover | Under NO circumstances is this okay. There has been hike after hike after hike and this is not sustainable. My power bill has doubled. DOUBLED!!!! Propane is outrageous. And don’t get me started on the gas prices. You go to the same well over and over with NO relief. NO opportunity to replenish the well. Go back to the table and start coming up with different solutions. You are proving to be a very greedy self serving group of people. You clearly do not care at all about us. Same as it ever was. Prove me wrong….please. | ||
| Roberta,Vanderzee | Already paying almost $6 a gallon to heat my home and have the heat turned down to 60 all day long to try to save. Taxes on top of that would make the situation even worse. Town and Village trucks that need to go out to plow and repair roads would cost more to run therefore raising taxes for residents. I already worked an hour and a half each day just to pay for my gas to get to work. My lifestyle requires a truck that can pull a trailer. So to go to work or enjoy off work activities it's going to be very difficult to afford those I'm sure there are many other economic impacts that I haven't listed. But I am totally against additional taxes on what is already very expensive to use. | ||
| Joseph,Kiesecker | You can't just slam on the brakes on fossil fuels and wood burning for heat sources. Many of us heat with oil, gas, wood pellets and wood. We are not in a position to upgrade our heat sources to green technology. We already pay some of the highest taxes and utility costs IN THE NATION! I can guarantee this, if you pass this legislation we will leave NY in droves! Been a New Yorker all my life. I've seen politicians like you come and go and even go to jail too. We don't trust or respect you. Your agenda is too aggressive and unaffordable for most. The electric infrastructure will not sustain the changes your pushing which means major upgrades and even more cost! Your not really thinking this through! | ||
| Adam,Zauner | Taxing gas, heating oil, natural gas, etc. would destroy upstate NY. Electric heat is not feasible for residents that live outside urban and suburban areas as the cost of electricity is so high. If options were expanded to upstate NY for cheaper electrical options it may work. I myself have signed up for a local solar farm over a year ago which has yet to get up and running. Commuting is another issue many workers travel 20+ miles to work. There is no public transportation so that is not an option. I hope you consider these issues before deciding to increase taxes, which will lead to even more residents leaving the state. | ||
| Ryan,Rogers | Your over stepping ur bounds you already over tax crooked democrats | ||
| M,C | We must defeat the Communist takeover by the Democrats in NYS at the ballot box. We are plagued with those who would ruin our economy with the 'GREEN NEW DEAL' ideology. I am wholeheartedly opposed to this bill in it's entirety. It is obvious that they want this bloated agenda to decimate the will of 'We the people'. Sincerly, MC | ||
| Heather,Raab | This is a plan that will only serve to hurt New Yorkers and drive even more people out of the state. Families do not care about zero emissions right now - we are trying to survive and feed our families and get our kids back and forth to school and events. We cannot afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars for new heating systems and new cars. Those of us who live in rural areas and have to make multiple trips to school and back with kids are not able to use public transportation. This whole plan is so unrealistic and burdensome to regular people. We can have a balanced approach to environmental protection without bankrupting the people of New York. Please stop this plan!! | ||
| Brittany,Thierman | I approve of this plan. We need to start being proactive and make the transition to green energy. Change is hard and it’s a big change but we must do it to save our environment. | ||
| Kristan ,Wager | I want to express my complete disagreement with the Over reach and unrealistic goals and plans for this state and our energy sources and usages. This is untenable in its scope. The prohibitive costs are foolish expenses when we live in a state with abundant natural gas and in a country with an abundance of gas. The demands of winter heating alone highlight the unrealistic goals. An electric snowplow? Fleets of them? School buses at over $300,000 each? The demands it would put on our aging power grid are mind boggling. The citizens of NYS are already over-taxed and fleeing in droves due to the onerous tax burdens and arbitrary and one-sided politics and this will put a final nail in the coffin of this state. I pray that rational and realistic debate will either remove this or modify this in a way that allows for both conventional and alternative forms of energy. Respectfully. Kristan Wager | ||
| Dan,Gorke | How many more ways can you make NY a more expensive and less competitive place to live? | ||
| Rene,Stehle | We need to drop the gas tax and help New Yorkers who can’t afford to heat Their homes or drive to work . Also cut the idea of No new gas hookups on new construction and drop the thought of eliminating gas vehicles . This is the worst plan I ever heard . Electricity is not a reliable source of power and heating not to mention the high cost . | ||
| John,O'Keefe | Instead of helping rural, low income communities, this "intuitive" will only lead to higher fuel costs, both for heating & cooling & transportation. As a retiree living in New York State, which already has some of the highest in the nation taxes; this misguided "intuitive" will only make it more difficult for residents like me to afford to live here. Love how millionaires like Climate Czar John Kerry flies private planes around as he preaches the Gospel of Climate Change. Or former VP Al Gore getting rich off Climate Change "intitives". How about making abundant our abundant resources like natural gas more accessible, and tapping into fracking in southern tier, which will create "real" high paying jobs for underserved communities, and make heating & cooling more affordable for average New Yorkers. Shame on you, this "intuitive" is snake oil & voodoo economics at it's worse. | ||
| Domonic,Knight | Absolutely ridiculous bill. We pay far too much for energy now. There’s no way working families could afford this | ||
| Kenneth ,Bickham | I can't believe that you are going to make it so more people leave this state because they won't be able to afford to heat their homes.All this is going to accomplish is driving up costs and making things cost more and probably have rolling blackouts like California.Telling people they can't heat with wood is crazy.You know it snows in New York and gets real cold also.They last time I paid for electric heat it Cost me $500for a month and that was 25 years ago.I can only imagine what it cost now.what,about seniors on a fixed income?How are they going to afford heat. All you will manage on doing is driving up costs and making it unaffordable to heat your house.leave it alone.Then you have Electric cars.Who will be able to afford them.Not a middle class person or someone who makes less money.From what I have seen These electric cars are garbage compared to regular cars.They don't have the warranty and can't go as far.Just leave things alone we don't have the infrastructure nor the means to implement these things.Stop ruining NY | ||
| GERALD,CADY II | N/A | No mandates! It's bad enough as it is dealing with all of your mandates in New York State! I'm not going to burn my house down to reconfigure it to your will, ditch my gasoline powered vehicles for electric, ditch my gasoline powered snow blower, tiller, mower, and trimmer, and throw out a perfectly working propane stove and oil burning heating unit! This comment section is all and good except I need to read and understand chapters 2-24 to understand what to comment on? The comment form is blank, so do I just state that I want to continue to burn wood, propane, and fuel oil to heat and cook with? And to continue to use gasoline powered vehicles and tools like mowers, tillers, and trimmers? If you continue on this "mandate path", I'm leaving this state for the rest of you to enjoy paying for this pipe dream. | |
| JOHN,JAYNE | You are driving people out of NY with your agressvise climate change plan. Just stop an listen to the people that vote. Some of your plan is hurting our air water and land. The people that protest expanding nat. Gas for heat and power are wrecking our lakes stream and air while spraying their vineyard with thousand of gallons of sprays monthly running in our lakes. I don’t see any protest about this. They press grapes and wash rinse water down their floor drains with ph’s so high it changing our lakes. Not nat gas use. Soon I will retire and have to relocate after spending my whole life here. Hope your happy. Your drive the older and our young out if the state. Good job !! | ||
| Brian ,Workman | This will kill New Yorkers, I can not support this financially and I don’t believe any of this is necessary. You are trying to force us to make purchases that are not needed. I just purchased a new oil boiler for my home two years ago and it needs to last me longer than I will be alive. I can’t afford to purchase a new car especially at todays process let alone an electric car price. I also live in upstate NY and no where near any public transportation. No public transportation exists that gets me to my job. | ||
| William ,Duda | NO! I do not want my way of life to be dictated by people that have no grasp of reality! The people in charge need to give answers to the following questions I have regarding this: 1. What are first responders supposed to do when there are long term storms/ power outages? I.e unable to charge their electric personal owned vehicles to respond to calls 2. What will happen to the people that rely on wood heat 100% when they lose power in the harsh winters and have no heat to sustain life or protect property? I.e. houses getting cold and water lines freezing/ bursting 3. Since these people want us to rely 100%on electric for vehicles and heat what's stopping electric companies from price gouging and rate hikes because "what else are people going to do? " I would like to hear solid answers to these questions. | ||
| joann,lanza | Nowhere do our elected officials mention the enormous cost to our every day New Yorkers to institute this plan. New Yorkers, business owners, tenants home owners landlords etc… no one can afford the cost this plan will entail. Updated homes, electrical codes, buildings etc. As a lifelong New Yorkers I can attest to the soaring costs of living, cost of cars, gas, electric heating and cooling. The cost of food, basically everything you NEED to buy is more money. Yet, my salary has not increased. Your decisions affect regular people, mothers fathers children. Please vote no! | ||
| Shelley,Earle | This is insanity: Homes and buildings heated by natural gas would be required convert to electricity. Our entire energy system would be dependent on green technologies whose reliability is still uncertain, while proven options like natural gas would cease to exist in New York. The final price tag and exact cost increases on consumers are still unknown. But we do know the actual impact any of these measures will, at best, have a minimal impact on global climate change. We all want clean air, water and healthy planet. Environmental goals are worth pursuing. It is irresponsible to start an initiative of this size and magnitude without considering the real-world impacts and costs on the people of this state. | ||
| David,Lonobile | NY is going to gain $225,000,000,000 with this plan because NY will see reduced hurricane & weather damage ?? Now avoiding the economic impact of damages caused by climate change assumes that NY State, by itself, becoming carbon neutral will change the world climate such that these damages will be avoided. (?) How does mitigating all of NY's carbon compare to an unpredictable volcano eruption? What is assumed about the other 49 US states? What about the 1500 - 3000 (depending on what source you believe) coal fired electric power plants in China. Or, the 1200+ in India. Or, the additional 500 other plants in those two countries currently planned or under construction? Do we know climate change will unchange? Or, perhaps it is too late to stop the weather effects that cause that damage? This plan will completely turn NY State economy and society upside down for feel good paper promises that will likely amount to beans (frozen beans). I have no problem with creating sustainable carbon free energy sources. But don't mess with my natural gas appliances based on this baloney. | ||
| Lori,Torres | While I understand the push for green energy, the complete lack of reality by political leaders in New York as far as what can be tolerated by residents financially is frightening to say the least. A transition to from old energy forms cannot be accomplished until there are available, affordable alternatives. Leadership should be ashamed of themselves for pushing without putting the brain power behind making these changes affordable and realistic. | ||
| Eric,Campanella | To Whom It May Concern: To say the reasoning behind converting all of New York State from natural gas to all electric is disconcerting to say the least. NYC does not make up the entire state. It may be the most densely populated, however the sprawling state has a larger area that would be dramatically effected by this change. There's no existing infrastructure that could handle such a large upgrade in a short amount of time. Constructing so many new homes and converting appliances to this new energy within a 2-3 year timespan would require a large overhaul to the electrical grid, which is not sustainable, and trying to reconstruct the grid or expand at a rapid pace in a short span logically only means problems are inevitable. Not to mention what is needed for existing structures. Natural gas is more efficient, cheaper, and by and large cleaner than a power grid or a "nuclear" sized plant to accommodate such needs. The cost alone for the vast majority of residents, largely WNY and Upstate NY, is not a simple out of pocket expense. Most make an honest living doing just enough to get by due to lower wages and the ever growing tax hike in this state. This would be a large undertaking and unwarranted stress to the resident/homeowner. You're excluding the impact on those employed by a natural gas provider. I work for only one organization out of many throughout the state and companies cannot simply convert their entire business and practices to an entirely different and unique sector. The proposed laws would effect thousands in the workforce alone, putting many on the unemployed list or being forced to accept a lower wage than previously earned. This includes individuals who've been with their respective companies for 1,10, 20 years and it's highly unlikely they qualify for any retirement or pension prior to your typical retirement age. This plan will only provide more harm than good in a state where far too often the rules are dictated by one demographic. | ||
| Lydia,Stang | I object to New York's plan to go green. I hate seeing those ugly windmills coming out of our beautiful mountains and along our lakes. Most days these monstrosities are not moving. They have to be maintained and serviced with oil. The acreage that they and solar panel farms take up is a huge footprint compared to Natural Gas. The northeast has the most cloud cover all year long. We get excited in the fall and winter for a bright sunny day. The solar farms are a waste of our farmland. The soil underneath those panels will be useless for generations. The panels will be a hazardous waste nightmare. They are made with carcinogens that can blow off in the short term with wind or bad weather and disposal of these products is serious problem. The batteries too are hazardous waste. People who have been pro green energy are now seeing the long-term effects of how to dispose of these products. It's not the panacea it's made out to be. Natural gas is clean, cheap and plentiful. Fracking has been developed to be safe. We could make our state rich again by allowing fracking. Nuclear energy is also a lot safer than in the past. We should look into nuclear. The percentage of output of wind and solar compared to hydroelectric, gas and oil is minimal even with what is already up and active. Windmills are fine for a small development or a farm. Solar panels can be used on the tops of homes and buildings if people choose. I don't think it should be a main source of power. Other communities that have gone green have found costs to b higher even in Texas where their weather is more conducive. Germany is even going back to fossil fuels. I don't want to depend on a windy or sunny day for heat or air conditioning or to use my generator in a 2 week power outage. Look at all the cons before we make such a drastic move you will be sorry about later. You are making a decision that affects the life New York citizens and the future of business in New York. Lydia Sta | ||
| Ruth,Atkin | page 18: Electrical generation and distribution should include community choice aggregation as the default way to provide renewable energy with NYSEG and all other energy providers with an option to opt out for electricity customers who want conventional electricity. Existing barriers, such as leaving CCA in the hands of local jurisdictions and municipalities, only slows down decarbonizing our energy production. | ||
| Peter,Rieck | Retired | Now is not the time to make it harder for New Yorkers to heat and power their Homes. My Gas And Electric Bill went Up $79.00 in one month, My Pension did not go up. I can barely afford to pay for Gas And Electric now, without trying to find Alternate Means, which do not exist, at this time. If This Plan is approved, I will be among the thousands moving out of the State, to A more Energy And people Friendly State. Your Liberal, “Progressive” Plan would mean many people will freeze to death in their own Homes. Join the Real World, and drop these plans! | |
| Ron ,Beagle | Your plan is way too aggressive in such a short time frame. Use some common sense on this or else you will drive more residence to Florida | ||
| Diane,Matza | I am writing to support the scoping plan. As the latest UN Report on Climate tells us, Our past failures to act to reduce carbon emissions put us in a precarious position. This is not news to go to Those of us who have been following climate inaction for the last 40 or 50 years. That New York State has finally passed the CLCPA is Of course welcome news. But a plan is meaningless without the resources and commitment to put it in place. This scoping plan addresses our needs comprehensively. It also shows how New York State can be a model for nation, not Only regarding specifics related to electrifying homes, transportation, etc. but in how we support climate justice initiatives. We must put this plan into action as swiftly as possible. | ||
| Samantha,Gore | I support implementing all laws that are being supported by the Renewable Heat Now Campaign! | ||
| William,Rabbia | NYS Association for Solid Waste Mana gement (NYSASWM) | To whom it may concern, The New York state Association for Solid Waste Management is respectfully requesting a 60-day extension to the Draft Scoping Plan public comment period. We are making our way through this extensive document, but require additional time to thoughtfully provide comments to the Climate Action Council. Thank you for considering our request for an extension. Sincerely, William Rabbia NYSASWM President | |
| Martha,Upton | The climate crisis demands that we do all we can to transition our electric grid off of fossil fuels and onto renewables as quickly as possible. Since the buildout of renewable energy projects will be decided and overseen primarily at the local level, this means creating tools that support local leaders (both at the municipality and county levels) in smart siting. We have seen that opposition to new renewable projects often erupts in municipalities when residents (who are generally in favor of renewables) feel that projects would be better sited elsewhere. Much of this conflict could be avoided by putting clear, thoughtful zoning regulations in place. In order to establish zoning regulations that both support new renewable projects and manage their responsible placement, local leaders need immediate access to a range of information, which the proposed Clean Energy Development Mapping Tool (Chapter 19 --Land Use, Chapter 13 --Electricity) would provide. On a much smaller scale, I have seen the power of a comprehensive mapping tool in my own region, where Scenic Hudson offers this support to local municipalities. The tool has been tremendously useful to our Hudson Valley town/county leaders as they work to develop optimal plans for solar siting. Such a tool should certainly be made available at the state level as it would provide a great service to leaders at every level of government. It would help us develop perspective, make wise choices, and avoid unnecessary conflicts that slow down the adoption of renewable energy. The Clean Energy Development Mapping Tool would support a fast, responsible, and fair transition to renewables. I urge you to include it in the final scoping plan. | ||
| Rachelle,Gura | I am a lifelong New Yorker, retired public school librarian, and am active in Citizens’ Climate Lobby. I am a hiker and gardener and have great reverence for nature, and climate change is my top issue. I commend the CAC and all agency staff who contributed to the development of this impressive plan. The inclusion of Economy-wide Strategies is an important addition to the draft plan, because even full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide strategies would help ensure that we do meet those goals. A price on carbon is key. Countless economists and scientists contend that an economy-wide carbon price is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies. Carbon pricing is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. In order to implement a carbon price in a manner that does not negatively impact lower-income New Yorkers, a carbon fee and dividend program should be used. In such a scheme, a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. A carbon price should start low and rise gradually each year. This, along with returning revenue to households, is necessary to provide people and businesses reasonable time to transition to cleaner energy sources in response to clear, predictable pricing signals. I want to caution that carbon pricing must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings and transportation. | ||
| Marcie,Richner | I do not agree with your plans. Here is why: Did you know that dinosaurs' skeletons have been found in Antartica? That would suggest that there HAS been climate change (think of the ICE AGES (at least 5) over time. Glaciers covered the earth, receded and formed our lakes and other earth formations. Repeat. If this finding of Antartica's dinasaur' bones is a result of CONTINENTAL DRIFT" there is NOTHING that man can do. If these weather changes are a result of SOLOR FLARES or something blocking the sun (like volcanic activity), there is nothing we can do except learn to adapt. You do realize that windmills and battery operated 'everything' is just going to add to our landfills. Only 85% of windmills are recyclable and batteries have a lot of toxic materials in them. If we want less waste in our landfills. then recycle food products for compost, stop making cheap products like appliances that break and end up in the landfill. Eliminate cell phones and return to old dial phones since they last longer. CARBON DIOXIDE is good for the environment. The plants take in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen through photosynthesis. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. Think of how well vegetables and trees will grow in place of the fields of solar panels. And it will look better. Climate justice? People are portable. Deserts were once green landscapes and it can change again, If you don't like your climate, move. Nobody wants to live near power lines, solar panels, windmills, pollution, dumps, etc. Are you considering making everyone's life miserable for equity reasons? Maybe we should live like the Amish. I admire that they are self-supportive. No electricity, make your own clothes, do laundry on a wash board and ride horses to work and the store. And no technology. That should make you happy. New jobs when things are done by hand again! Only God can change the climate. | ||
| Steve,Filson | There is NO Climate Change , There is Only WEATHER . There are no Disadvantaged Zones there are only Cities ,Counties , States in our Country . All this Artificial Social Justice Propaganda is just a form of Socialism that the democRAT party has foisted upon America in the pursuit of Power ...Full Stop. It costs more energy to make solar panels , and Wind Turbines than they will ever return . they add toxic waste when they end their life. We do NOT need these plans and programs as AMERICA is one of the most clean energy Countries n the World. Our Country Would be energy independent if not for the Socialist / Communist democRAT policies that have been Punishing America since the democRATS installed their dementia patient in the White House. I am an Independent Voter And this disaster that you are going to impose on new yorkers will KILL people. it already caused deaths in texas where it was being implemented. We will hold those of you imposing these over burdensome impositions on us . | ||
| Angela,Schettine | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Kent,Pennell | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. This is crazy to even think about at this point in time! | ||
| Joe,Cimbak | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. In New York State we are literally directly north and a little bit east of arguably the largest gas supply in the nation in the Marcellus and Utica shales of PA and OH. That close proximity should translate to CHEAP ENERGY for NY State. We should be exploiting that distance and bringing as much of this clean burn fuel into NYS as we can. I do not understand how politicians and pundits can think that would be bad for NY. We cannot live without fossil fuels. We need to heat and cook and we need electricity. Open the Natural Gas floodgates. Let's make NY GREAT! | ||
| Debbie,Sisson | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Teresa,Stevens | I feel that this plan is not feasible in the time line given. Making homeowners switch to electricity from other sources of home heating is going to be costly for New Yorkers, especially the elderly. Also the infrastructure to charge electric vehicles in not available in rural areas. Not to mention the selection of electric vehicles is small and they are extremely expensive to repair. Is there any documentation on the life of solar panels? Are they going to have be replaced after a short period of time at the cost of the people of New York | ||
| Lewis ,Dubuque | National Waste & Recycling Association | The National Waste & Recycling Association is requesting a sixty (60) day extension to provide our written comments to the CLCPA on its draft scoping plan. Thank you. | |
| Kelly,See | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. stop with all your madness | ||
| Julia,Geerkin | I think there is a huge strain on the electrical grid in this country. Banning Natural Gas Appliances would add to this issue and is the wrong way to go. Natural Gas is one of the cleanest Fossil Fuels. When the electric goes out I still can use my stove top burners to cook. If I had to have an all electric stove I wouldn't have a way to cook. In the winter this would be a HUGE problem. Don't fool yourself using Electricity still pollutes the environment. Let's not just ban Natural Gas Appliances out of fear. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michelle Diegelman [email protected] 5859 Lakecrest Dr Lake View, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am 100% opposed to the new Climate Action Council's Scoping Plan. It is extreme and unnecessary. Climate is always in flux and the actually warming is less than extreme models predict from temperature date around the world. This plan will accelerate the exodus of businesses and residents from New York State. It is not realistic to try and eliminate all fossil fuel and only use renewable energy. Wind farms are opposed by people living close by. Maintaining the turbines is difficult and expensive. There will be numerous lawsuits. Solar energy isn't so efficient in times of severe winter weather and is not very reliable in heavily cloudy weather. We need a moderate plan not an extreme plan. Dr William Merry Natural gas is very efficient and is a source of reliable inexpensive fuel. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good morning - I am reaching out to inquire if you have an Executive Summary of the Draft Scoping Plan. I did look at the Overview, but that appears to be primarily an overview of the process. Grateful for your feedback, Lisa Hill Lisa Hill Communications Director Senator George M. Borrello 518-455-3569 (office) 518-496-2882 (mobile) |
||
| Hugh,collins | Hello CAC, First of all, congratulations on putting this comprehensive plan together. You are doing important work to put NY at the forefront of climate progress and climate justice, in the US and in the world. I am certain many organizations, bodies and individuals contributed to the report and I commend you all. I particularly appreciate that its is an economy-wide report. There is simply no way to tackle this sector-by-sector, or region-by-region. From my perspective, it is important that the plan *should include a tax on carbon.* This is the single most effective way to reduce emissions and has already been successfully implemented elsewhere. It is straightforward, non-regulatory and affords more certainty on pricing. That's better for individuals, families and businesses. From an equity perspective, we should look to use some of the funds raised by the carbon tax to subsidize the energy costs of lower and middle income families (and even some businesses). Practically speaking, it should be a carbon tax that is introduced at a low level and then gradually increased. This will give consumers and businesses clarity and time to adjust to the new environment. What we do NOT want to have is carbon pricing applying only to the electricity sector through RGGI. This would increase electricity costs relative to fossil fuels, and so be counterproductive. Congratulations again on putting together a comprehensive plan. Let's work together for a cleaner, richer and more just green economy in NY. Yours sincerely, Hugh Collins | ||
| Katherine,Falkides | As a US citizen living in New York State, I am much against this "scoping plan" and our State's Government officials who are advocating drastic changes in the immediate future to eliminate our use of fossil fuels and switch to "alternative energy". First of all, I think this proposed change in energy sources should be accomplished on a much slower and more thoughtful consideration of all NY state residents. If we eliminate fossil fuels, and everyone buys electric cars, I believe we will not have adequate electricity to accommodate everything being proposed. I believe charging stations for automobiles will be insufficient and owners will be faced with huge inconveniences not expected. Secondly, although windmills are certainly a source of energy, they are not able to provide adequate energy at all times necessary. They are very noisy and take up a lot of useful land. They kill birds and they are very undesirable to live near. As for our country's national security, I believe we need fossil fuels to stabilize our economy and for national security. Climate change will take a long time to create a very small change and I am not convinced it has been proven scientifically to affect our life in this century. I believe it will harm our nation, including NY citizens, much more in the shorter run than, but rather hurt us long before we will see any measurable benefits. This is being forced on us by left politicians and does not represent the wishes of the majority of our US citizens. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Our climate has undergone cyclic change ever since climate existed, If you listen to climate alarmists like John Kerry and others the world should have flooded, frozen or burned up and ended years ago. Apparently everyone seems to have forgotten their predictions of the past or conveniently overlooks them. Many climate models and organizations that are funded by federal and state dollars have been shown to be flawed and favored in one direction. Possibly to perpetuate the climate threat and to guarantee future funding. CO2 is currently the boogieman in the air, I can remember when it was the ozone. CO2 in a building block of nature. Water vapor will increase warming more than CO2. Perhaps we should get rid of our clouds, The Climate change movement is to push an agenda and is based on political science not actual science and the wording of the agenda seems to align with political correctness. The real polluters like China and India are ignored. Sent fromMail for Windows |
||
| Sara,Culotta | NYS citizen | This comment relates to developing the educated and trained workforce we need to make the Plan real. Apprenticeships in a wide range of trades and energy-related middle-skills occupations are a key pathway to attracting and developing the people we need. Apprenticeships support people to earn while they learn, to be mentored and to be motivated and seasoned by real-world work-based experience. Currently in NYS, it is a lengthy and complicated process to register a new Apprenticeship through Department of Labor. This needs to be streamlined and actively fast-tracked, then promoted as a way to build the workforce for our clean energy economy. | |
| Sara,Culotta | Siemens Smart Infrastructure | I believe it is vital to transform attitudes, practices and regulations within NYS Education Department in order to implement this plan. At the PreK-12 level, there are many rigidly held barriers to decarbonizing schools which include 18 year payback on energy performance contracts, despite much equipment such as solar PV having a longer life cycle. Converting HVAC to heat pump systems is virtually impossible upstate due to this requirement, and also due to the attachment to redundant and/or dual fuel fossil gas boiler systems based on the idea that it would be unacceptable to close a school building for a day if there is a heating system failure. But now that COVID has shown us that school can operate remotely if an emergency calls for it, this principle needs to be reviewed. A good way to understand these and many other barriers to implementing energy efficiency and electrification of school buildings and fleets would be to convene a meeting of those who work in the space - the engineers, contractors, superintendents and facility directors - for a discussion of changes in SED policy, programs and practices that are needed to accomplish the goals in the Plan. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Hello CAC, First of all, congratulations on putting this comprehensive plan together. You are doing important work to put NY at the forefront of climate progress and climate justice, in the US and in the world. I am certain many organizations, bodies and individuals contributed to the report and I commend you all. I particularly appreciate that its is an economy-wide report. There is simply no way to tackle this sector-by-sector, or region-by-region. From my perspective, it is important that the plan *should include a tax on carbon.* This is the single most effective way to reduce emissions and has already been successfully implemented elsewhere. It is straightforward, non-regulatory and affords more certainty on pricing. That's better for individuals, families and businesses. From an equity perspective, we should look to use some of the funds raised by the carbon tax to subsidize the energy costs of lower and middle income families (and even some businesses). Practically speaking, it should be a carbon tax that is introduced at a low level and then gradually increased. This will give consumers and businesses clarity and time to adjust to the new environment. What we do NOT want to have is carbon pricing applying only to the electricity sector through RGGI. This would increase electricity costs relative to fossil fuels, and so be counterproductive. Congratulations again on putting together a comprehensive plan. Let's work together for a cleaner, richer and more just green economy in NY. Yours sincerely, Hugh Collins |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ty Henderson [email protected] 3711 Dry Creek Road Granbury, TX 76049 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joseph Eagen [email protected] 12336 New Oregon Rd. Springville, NY 14141 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Roger,Giuseppetti | There is much political conversation on “climate crisis”. The “crisis” is a word created by politicians and used as a scare tactic for the general public. It is basically a money grab. The only scientific data presented is by those “scientists “ who may benefit by that money. There are several reputable scientists who disagree. I am 79 years old. I have not seen any appreciable change in the climate | ||
| John & Erin,Smith | retired | This nonsense is ANOTHER fine plan to chase native New Yorker's from this state. We choose to retire here instead of a much cheaper state to enjoy retirement. Northern New York will wither and die under this plan. The limitations and expenses are just not feasible. Preserve and enhance nuclear power until such time fusion power is a functional reality. Stop this nonsense now! | |
| Felton,McLaughlin | On the draft scoping overview, there's a discussion around converting natural gas-fired furnaces in all buildings to heat pump systems. What is the cost per square foot to do that? And will there by any state tax credits paired with this program to ease the pain of that one-time cost? On a related note, what the cost for that same conversion for multi-family apartment buildings? What's the PSF cost for office and other commercial buildings? Thanks | ||
| Kathleen,Warda | While I applaud the goals of this ambitious plan, my main concern is what is it going to cost me? As I understand the plan, I as a homeowner will be required to replace my furnace, hot water heater and gas stove with electric models within the next 10 years at a cost of several thousand dollars. Not counting the fact that electricity is more expensive overall than gas. How are you going to keep the cost affordable when the demand for electricity keeps going up? Over my lifetime as a homeowner I have had a heat pump which I had to replace in five years. I replaced the heat pump with an electric air conditioner that lasted about 20 years. My heating was a hybrid system with the heat pump was the primary heating unit until the temperature reached 35 degrees outside and the gas furnace took over. The heat pump never held the inside temperature to a comfortable level and I had to rely on electric space heaters to augment the heat "feel" inside my house. I had an electric hot water heater that lasted less than 10 years. I replaced it with a gas model that to my knowledge is still functioning today 20+ years later. My gas stove came with the house which was built in 1965 and is still functioning well. I never had to worry about a power failure in the winter because they were gas fueled. I have lived in a home that was heated by electric and the electric bill was much higher than my gas bill for the same size home. Then there is the issue of electric cars with their limited mileage and currently lack of charging stations. There are people who like to travel outside of a 250 mile range and this is a serious limitation. I think these plans are too ambitious and designed for those who are better able to afford these lofty ideals. | ||
| Not ,Stupid | This climate change agenda is total garbage and those of us with half a brain know it. It's the same as all the Democrats' pet projects. You don't really care (or believe it's an actual crisis) you just want to shove an agenda down our throats to enrich yourselves and your buddies and hold on to power and control no matter if it makes any sense or not. Hence all the hypocrite elites still flying around in their private jets and buying houses along coastlines. We are not stupid. Leave us alone! | ||
| Luann ,Meyer | SWANA - NY Chapter | To whom it may concern, SWANA - NY is respectfully requesting a 60-day extension to the Draft Scoping Plan public comment period. We are making our way through this extensive document, but require additional time to thoughtfully provide comments to the Climate Action Council. Thank you for considering our request for an extension. Sincerely, Luann Meyer SWANA-NY Chapter President | |
| [email protected] | The attached emails were received in the email box that DOT created for the Transportation Advisory Panel before we updated th e autoreply to direct folks to the comment form. Please include with Scoping Plan public comments. | has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Clayton Hoover [email protected] 15002 rt 322 Clarion, PA 16214 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Andrea Harvey 277 E Prospect Ave Hamburg, NY 14075 [email protected] | ||
| James,Malseed | retired | I am a life-long resident of Upstate NY, a homeowner and a rural landowner. I heat my home with firewood sourced primarily from my own woods. This is an important issue for me for several reasons. When we built our home in 1982, we had a Russian Fireplace built in. This is a very efficient and clean-burning wood burning appliance. It utilizes a masonry mass surrounding the firebox to absorb and radiate the heat from the fire. As such, we use a minimum amount of wood, approximately six to eight face cords of wood per year. The principal is to burn a small load of wood, what a typical wood carrier holds, once or twice a day. The fire is burned fast and hot, producing a bed of coals which are then held in the firebox with damper closed, to allow the residual heat to be absorbed by the masonry mass. Since it burns fast and hot the escaping smoke is also burned and reduces the emissions to a safe and healthy level. The use of renewable solid fuel such as firewood is a very practical source of heat. It allows us to maintain a healthy woodlot which provides natural habitat for birds and other wildlife, not to mention oxygen-producing and CO2 reducing forest. If the Commission studies the issue I believe they will find great benefit in allowing the use of wood as a renewable resource. By all means, we should encourage the use of high efficiency wood-burning appliances and bio-mass burners. There is plenty of economic incentive for consumers to use efficient burners, such as reducing the amount of wood to harvest or purchase. Encouraging the manufacturers to produce high efficiency wood burners is an obvious avenue to pursue, but penalizing those of us who would rather use renewable fuels rather than hydrocarbon-based fuels is a disservice to us and to the environment. Thank you for considering these thoughts. | |
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Thomas Rosenecker 4668 Helenwood Dr Buffalo, NY 14221 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dylan Galinsky [email protected] 40832 Mystic Park Rd TITUSVILLE, PA 16354 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Thomas Maguire 11471 Renee Ct Marilla, NY 14102 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cody Davis [email protected] Spring st East Otto, NY 14729 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas Ochs [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Richard,Klotz | Thank you to the CAC, working groups, advisory panels and agency staff for developing the Draft Scoping Plan. My comments pertain to Chapter 17 and Economy-wide Strategies. As a Distinguished Teaching Professor at SUNY Cortland, I taught about the science of climate change. In retirement, I have devoted significant time to understanding the policy side, searching for solutions to climate change and clean energy innovation. I agree with the recommendations of countless economists and their models that show the single most effective way to decarbonize is to put a gradually rising fee on carbon at the source of any fossil fuel generated in or imported into the state. To make this policy socially just, most of the revenue should be returned to low- and middle-income residents as a carbon cashback, as well as to any business that may be unduly impacted by higher energy costs. This policy is straightforward and non-regulatory and if the fee starts out low and gradually rises, it will allow consumers and businesses to adjust to the changes and fully embrace the benefits of a clean energy economy. In order to meet the CLCPA goals, this policy should apply economy-wide, not just to the electrical sector. I strongly recommend that carbon pricing with a carbon cashback be included in your final plan. Again, thank you for your work and for considering my comments. | ||
| Ralph,Preston | The plan is ludicrous at this time we do not have the technology or infrastructure to support ur plan. Natural gas is by far the best option.Clean burning dependable I my self will use it till I die. And gasoline vehicles to electric gasoline will win every time. You need to improve your electrification before you force it on the public.People don’t like to be pushed.Bans on gas appliances no gas in new builds not a good idea.When electric is as good and as efficient as gas oh cost effective too then people mite switch.Disproportionate climate change what is that ? Better your product and people will want it. For now I don’t see why New Yorkers should have to suffer with this we enough to think about with out this being shoved down our throat. Good luck with your dream | ||
| Jim,Taft | Scoping document is complex, incremental, heavily bureaucratic. It advises numerous policy tweaks to our market economy which has numerous (often conflicting) stakeholders. Scoping seems to avoid delivering realistic solutions to major corporate and political elements. Scoping should estimate GHG reductions which would result from various suggestions, thereby budgeting GHGs and introducing more realism into plans to meet CLCPA goals. Scoping document offers many small strategies of doubtful effectiveness (e.g. NYS preparing fleet expense estimates to enable fleet operators to opt for EVs). These may be diversions away from direct engagement with CLCPA GHG reduction goals. NYS should, while CAC scoping and planning, immediately implement obviously beneficial policies (e.g. much greater promotion of LDVs, MOD). Legislature should give Executive temporary authority to mandate GHG-reducing policies in order to quickly establish Climate Leadership in this planetary emergency. Add more intermediate, shorter-term target dates to increase likelihood of reaching 2030 and 2050 goals. Consider 'Carbon Fee and Dividend' model proposed by Citizen's Climate Lobby, or a modification of it creating more revenue for NYS to more quickly reduce GHGs. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Marcia brogan [email protected] 91 Knowlton Ave Kenmore, NY 14217 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Neill,Morris-Knower | For house, I support the following: - all-electric building codes for new construction - zero-emissions standards for replacing fossil equipment/appliances at end of useful life - aligning Public Service Law with Climate Law - NO MORE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE - Sufficient, dedicated funding to support an affordable transition for low- and moderate-income households ($1 billion/yr) For transportation, I support the following: - Require a progressively-structured "feebate" on car purchases to encourage EV purchases and leases (new & used). - Eliminate sales tax for new and used EVs. - Enable direct sales of EVs. - Move up proposed target for zero-emissions State passenger fleet to 2030. - Accelerate State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build out. - Fix utility rates to encourage EV uptake and off-peak charging. - Develop a strategy to support expansion of non-MTA public transportation. - Require State & IDA development funding to align with emissions reduction strategies (including mobility-oriented development). For electricity: - Set annual MW target for State permitting of renewables to reach 70x30 goal. - Set MW targets to expand rooftop and parking lot solar & and siting on brownfields, and develop a plan to reach those targets. - The priority focus should be on ramping up renewables and battery storage, as recommended, not "false solutions" (e.g., green hydrogen, RNG). - Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. - Incentivize agrivoltaics and require NYSERDA and Ag and Markets to produce educational materials and guidance on agrivoltaics. - Launch statewide k-12 education & public information campaign around climate, renewable energy, and job training opportunities. | ||
| Evan,Foster | ? Require a progressively-structured "feebate" on car purchases to encourage EV purchases and leases (new & used). ? Eliminate sales tax for new and used EVs. ? Enable direct sales of EVs. ? Move up proposed target for zero-emissions State passenger fleet to 2030. ? Accelerate State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build out. ? Fix utility rates to encourage EV uptake and off-peak charging. ? Develop a strategy to support expansion of non-MTA public transportation. ? Require State & IDA development funding to align with emissions reduction strategies (including mobility-oriented development). ? Set annual MW target for State permitting of renewables to reach 70x30 goal. ? Set MW targets to expand rooftop and parking lot solar & and siting on brownfields, and develop a plan to reach those targets. ? The priority focus should be on ramping up renewables and battery storage, as recommended, not "false solutions" (e.g., green hydrogen, RNG). ? Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. ? Incentivize agrivoltaics and require NYSERDA and Ag and Markets to produce educational materials and guidance on agrivoltaics. ? Launch statewide k-12 education & public information campaign around climate, renewable energy, and job training opportunities. ? No new fossil infrastructure. ? ASAP: Process to set targets for reducing fossil fuel generation emissions needs to start now. ? Ensure fossil plants disproportionately harming disadvantaged communities close first. ? Ensure adequate funding for localities affected by plant closure. ? Ensure plant-owner responsibility for site remediation. ? Incentivize/prioritize re-use of sites for battery storage if ? community supports it (or renewables if sufficient land is ? available). | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher Ulrich [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Robin,Moulton | I'm writing to ask NYSERDA and the State of NY to look into piloting a project aimed at making the use of ZEVs easier by reducing concerns related to charging these vehicles. Electreon Wireless (https://electreon.com/) is currently installing a 1-mile patch of roadway in Detriot that charges EVs through magnetic plates and receivers. I feel the State of NY could also benefit from this technology and would be a leader in adopting this strategy for charging infrastructure and bringing it to the mainstream. I believe this particular activity would fall under the Smart Growth and Mobility-Oriented Development theme T9: New Technology Integration. Here's a link to the article: https://www.businessinsider.com/public-road-detroit-to-charge-electric-cars-as-they-drive-2022-2 I would love to chat about how my team could help make this a reality. | ||
| Lawrence,Maguire | If not now, when? | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michael J Kahle [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Chris J Mathews [email protected] 140 Carla Lane West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| T,STCLAIR | I support this. Please make it happen! | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email came from an external
source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or
unexpected emails. CAC Scoping Plan Comment Letter.pdf Dear Dear Governor Hochul and Members of the Climate Action Council, I am the Executive Director of the Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (NEHPBA). As the spokesperson for over 85 New York members in the hearth industry, all of whom are small, mom & pop business owners, we would like to offer our testimony in opposition to the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. Attached, please find our comment letter. Thank you for your consideration, Karen L. Arpino NEHPBA 978.440.0344 NEHPBA.org |
has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jamie Hughes [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Henry Renzi [email protected] 6 Lille Ln Cheektowaga, NY 14227 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dan McDaniel [email protected]m 12596 bank st Hydetown, PA 16328 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Deborah Schmitt [email protected] 131 Parwood Dr Cheektowaga, NY 14227 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, nick pasquarella [email protected] 3491 Heatherwood Drive Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mary Musilli [email protected] 8680 Sheridan Hill Dr Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ami Riffel [email protected] 180 Dorchester Road East Aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kristin Miglin [email protected] 63 Candlewood Lane Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Everett Wright [email protected] 228 N Meadowbrook Parkway Cheektowaga, NY 14206 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kahshawn nevins [email protected] 733 Eggert Road Buffalo, NY 14215 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, MARK B CLARK [email protected] 5762 APPLEMAN RD ERIE, PA 16509 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dave Nelson [email protected] 1809 Laurie lane Erie, PA 16509 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, George Erbin [email protected] 1810 Greentree Drive Erie, PA 16509 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ryan Cowser [email protected] 8706 Prindle rd North East, PA 16428 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian J Richards [email protected] 14111 day rd Holland, NY 14080 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| David,Ruekberg | Thank you for creating a law to prevent the climate crisis from developing into a climate catastrophe. Without effective changes in our lifestyle, we will soon reach a tipping point beyond which there will be no remedy. We have known for half a century that greenhouse gasses were raising global temperatures, but opposition from a few short-sighted but powerful entities meant little was done. It is now almost too late. Decisive action is required. I strongly recommend a carbon pricing solution such as proposed by the “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act” (H.R. 2307) and the “Save Our Future Act” (S.2085). These bills put a gradually rising price on carbon and return a dividend to households to help offset the cost of rising fossil fuels during a transition to clean energy. They especially help low income households, including those disproportionately hurt by fossil fuel pollution. While a few in the highest income brackets would experience a net loss, owing to their greater use of fossil fuels, their vast amounts of discretionary wealth would be minimally affected by such a loss (equal to two weeks at Disneyworld). Meanwhile, such a fee would necessarily encourage innovation, creating jobs in a “green” energy economy surpassing any jobs lost in industries such as coal and oil mining. We have the ingenuity to solve this crisis, just as we had the ingenuity that got us into it. We retooled massively after World War 2, and built an economy on oil. We can just as easily build one on solar, wind, and other non-polluting resources. Resistance is only due to the fact that less wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. Government leaders must make the brave and prudent decision to do what is best for the majority if we are to regain our status as one of the great nations of the world. Let New York lead the way in showing the rest of the country how to do it. Without a healthy planet on which to run it, the economy means nothing. Thank you. | ||
| Heather,Chun | Chapter 3 comment: - We need your leadership to make the direly needed systemic changes to severely reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to ensure a just transition, and to show other states and regions around the world solutions to decarbonize the economy and the government. Chapter 16 comment: - Develop statewide composting regulations. Provide compost material back to residents as positive feedback to encourage composting behaviour. - Develop regulations for limiting the use of fossil-fuel-based packaging material. Chapter 19 comments: - Give land back to Native American tribes not only because it's the right thing to do but also because they are leaders in sustainability and are wise stewards of the land. - Intensively increase indigenous plant coverage of the state. On public land, mandate that all new plantings are to be of native plants. This will support indigenous wildlife and pollinators that depend on native plants for habitat and for food. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ian Vande Velde [email protected] 6876 E. Route 20 Westfield, NY 14787 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Danya,Eades | To whom it may concern, I have grave concerns about passing the CLCPA. This draft is ridiculous. The banning of propane and natural gas appliances willl put billions of people out of work; those that work in or own refineries, gas stations and HVAC companies to name a few. Even plumbers would be negatively affected as they work with gas lines. Having to replace a furnace, stove tops, hot water heaters, BBQ grills, and your car within said period of time is an impossible financial undertaking for the average NYS family. Not to mention the financial costs for larger buildings like Hospitals and other existing public buildings. And where do those costs get passed - tax payers. Requiring ALL to own electric cars is a huge mistake on many levels. The greenhouse gases that electric car batteries give off is not environmentally friendly. The mining required to procure the lithium is far more harmful to the environment than the carbon footprint of multiple vehicles that run on gasoline. Eventually these batteries will need to be replaced and there is no safe way to dispose of those old ones without polluting the environment. Electric cars in the northern states of America is functionally problematic. The batteries won't last in the winter, as the cold drains batteries quickly. The general public doesn't have the means to replace the furnaces, gas grills, & vehicles. People will just end up leaving NYS. You won't find buyers for the abandoned houses as NO ONE will willingly buy a home with such extraneous requirements and their costs will turn future buyers. In short Phasing out all three types of GAS would be an economic catastrophe for NYS. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jennifer Vandevelde [email protected] 6876 E Route 20 Westfield, NY 14787 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Bradley,Hershenson | The report states that health risks associated with transportation emissions can be reduced with a shift toward technologies that do not rely on carbon-based fuels and the enhancement of public transportation systems and other low- carbon mobility options. The importance of first-last mile connections through the use of dockless shared electric scooters and bicycles should be discussed. The report reviews how studies have generally shown that neighborhood walkability is associated with increased physical activity and decreased body mass index, waist circumference, obesity, and hypertension. The use of first-last mile transit options in more neighborhoods throughout the state could address this issue on a wider scale. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Craig Falkowski [email protected] 3231 Porter Center Rd Youngstown, NY 14174 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Gerald Shain [email protected] 35 CLINTON AVE FREDONIA, NY 14063-1403 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jim Corby [email protected] 6363 main street Williamsville NY, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Laquita Williams-Johnson [email protected] 82 Duluth Avenue, Flr 1 Buffalo, NY 14216 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Denise,Katzman | I totally support the Draft Scoping Plan. NYS has great climate justice regulations that are continuously violated by the Governor. Permitting Bitcoin mining with its anthropogenic pollution, noise pollution, the ecosystem disruption of our waterbodies & flipping the switch to a peaker plant; equates to violating the CLCPA, CAC & the Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA). NYS' landfills generate CH4 & CO2 which equals up to 98% of landfill gas. The remaining 2% is a combination of: ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfides and a variety of other gases. The State allows CH4 capture for energy and ash waste (AW). The AW and trash hauler lack of regulations proves that the State is perpetually violating the CLCPA, CAC & the FCWA. It's 2022: Robust real property protection contracts must be made available & negotiable for all impacted property owners. State of the Art pollution prevention equipment must be instituted. Real political leadership and climate justice zero waste laws are long over due in NYS. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Chris Hughes [email protected] 575 treasure lake Dubois, PA 15801 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Margaret NcWilliams [email protected] 143 Autumnview Rd Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Martin,Bijak | I am concerned that transitioning to a heat pump heating system will be troublesome both in cost and ability to provide reliable and comfortable heating for residential use in Western New York. I have heard reports that heat pumps do not perform well in below freezing conditions such as Texas experienced last year. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert stawicki [email protected] 13514 schang rd East aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Bruce gleason [email protected] 7140 Strickler Road Clarence Center, NY 14032 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Carlos Garrido [email protected] 301 Belmont Ave Tonawanda, NY 14223 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Martin Krebs [email protected] 8903 Cattaraugus St. Springville, NY 14141 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Bob Plewa [email protected] 13137 Williston Rd East Aurora, NY 14052-9677 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dan Young [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Congdon [email protected] 11874 Center Road Silver Creek, NY 14136 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Stephen Dziak [email protected] 3980 Staley Dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joshua j cipolla [email protected] 80 DREYER AVE, TONAWANDA, NY 14150-6126 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Scott Payne [email protected] 29 Hidden Meadow Crossing LANCASTER, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John Henninger [email protected] 9515 Bent Grass Run. Unit D Clarence Center, NY 14032 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Todd Mertens [email protected] 1474 Borden Rd Depew, NY 14043 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jackie Freidenberg [email protected] 8 knight street Silver creek, NY 14135 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sandra A Dirschberger [email protected] 72 Simson St TONAWANDA, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Maryann Flaherty [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nick Churmusi [email protected] 6363 main Street Williamsville NY, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Julie hagner [email protected]m 9379 Boston state road Boston, NY 14025 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Frank sterlace [email protected] 729 crescent ave Buffalo, NY 14216 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Scott Fornof [email protected] 626 Bissell ave Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Austin Grieff [email protected] 1180 Elk Street, Apartment 2 Franklin, PA 16323 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mike Hutchinson [email protected] 405 Division Street Oil City, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Sara,Culotta | resident of Tompkins County | As a lifelong New Yorker and energy sector professional, I believe this is an excellent plan which provides needed information and guidance to industry, education and municipal governments for why and how to work fast, hard, smart and collaboratively to transform our economy, our energy production and energy-consuming systems and shift from being an endangered species to being a thriving regenerative human presence in North America and on the planet. I applaud all the hard work and resources that have gone into developing the plan. It's an excellent result. Now it needs a public relations and marcomm effort Supreme. Inform, educate, inspire, motivate, invite. Repeat. You're getting a very slow start - We are almost at 60 days. Please extend the public comment period to allow enough time for authentic participation. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeremy D Newkirk [email protected] 11543 Hanover rd Silver creek, NY 14136 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patricia Easterling [email protected] 70 Garfield St Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | From a barrel of oil you get gasoline, jet fuel and over 6000 every day products, From a NYS solar panel you get zilch 87% of year and intermittent electricity with no products. Solar in Georgia contributes 3.73% annually, NYS solar only 1.4%. South Carolina Solar Capacity Factor is over 20% annually. Georgia and South Carolina are not using solar and wind to power the grid to 70% by 2030. They are using solar to supplement nuclear and fossil fuels, which makes sense. CLCPA is ongoing failure and 70% by 2030 is impossible to achieve. At 27.45% for 2020 per NYSERDA 500,000 solar panels required for a 200MW solar site with non congruent, uncoupled sites over too many square miles. Facts won't matter, no one reads billons of words written, NYSERDA will plow ahead anyway. | |
| Patricia,Meyer Lee | Organize For Action WN | I feel it's imperative that before development of land near water, such as Lake Erie, that an environmental impact study be completed. Recently the Empire State Development Group allowed a private developer to bulldoze old growth trees on Buffalo's outer harbor. Our harbor and its trees are a buffer to the perils of climate change and yet these guards were readily destroyed late last year. Such a tragedy. An unnecessary amphitheater with parking spaces for 800 cars is planned for this sight all courtesy of Empire State Development's approval. I implore the State to make an environmental impact study a must in the steps to development of precious land,. Sincerely, Patricia Meyer Lee Community Connections | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. What Needs to Happen to Implement the CLCPA To implement the CLCPA we will need by 2030 to electrify 1-2 million homes with heat pumps and replace 3 million gas vehicles on the road with EVs. This will put more pressure on the grid, which needs to be upgraded and fully shifted to renewable energy by 2050. We will need a grid powered mainly by renewables, requiring 20 GW of 4-8 hr battery storage & firm, zero-emissions resources or long-duration storage. Cost/Benefit of Implementation of CLCPA The cost of action will be much cheaper than the cost of inaction. Net costs are small relative to economy's size. The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by over $90 billion. Furthermore, net costs are small relative to the size of NYS's economy: $15 billion, or .6% - .7% of Gross State Product (GSP) in 2030; $45 billion, or 1.4% of GSP in 2050. Health Benefits Implementing the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act will stop the poisoning of NYS residents by fossil fuel pollution. Eliminating fossil fuel combustion provides enormous public health benefits, reducing co-pollutants, such as fine particulates (PM2.5), and improving air quality. The state will realize between $50 - $120 billion in savings between 2020 and 2050 due to air quality improvements and impacts on health, alone. (ibid., p. 85) Job Benefits Implementation of the CLCPA will create a net gain of 189,000+ jobs by 2030 (268,000 jobs by 2050). These will be good jobs: the largest wage increase will be in middle wage positions ($28-$37 an hour), bucking the trend of last 50 years. Over half of new jobs are in the building sector. 211,000 new jobs will be created in 21 subsectors; 22,000 jobs will be lost in seven subsectors: A 10:1 ratio. Recommendations: Building Electrification · This year: Adopt Advanced building codes & appliance standards. · 2023-2027: Phased requirements for energy benchmarking/disclosure, beginning with multifamily & commercial over 10,000 sq ft. (must be adopted this year) · 2024: Require all-electric new construction for most residential; 2027, commercial & all buildings over 4 stories; prohibit new gas hook-ups to existing buildings. · 2030: Zero-emissions standards for replacement of fossil fuel equipment at end of useful life (most residential). · 2035: zero-emissions standards for fossil fuel replacements for large multifamily & commercial); zero emissions standards for replacements of gas appliances (stoves, dryers). Transportation · Require a progressively-structured "feebate" on car purchases to encourage EV purchases and leases (new & used). · Eliminate the sales tax for new and used EVs. · Enable direct sales of EVs. · Move up proposed target for zero-emissions State passenger fleet to 2030. · Accelerate State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build out. · Fix utility rates to encourage EV uptake and off-peak charging. · Develop a strategy to support expansion of non-MTA public transportation. · Require State & IDA development funding to align with emissions reduction strategies (including mobility-oriented development). Here on the East End, we are in desperate need of a robust build-out in public transportation. Currently, I have access to public transit only 4 times per day on a bus line that takes more than an hour to go twelve miles. We need more bus service (via electric buses), much more inter-town rail transit and more "last mile" transit via electric vehicles + app. Clean Power for the Grid · Set annual MW target for State permitting of renewables to reach 70x30 goal. · Set MW targets to expand rooftop and parking lot solar & and siting on brownfields, and develop a plan to reach those targets. · The priority focus should be on ramping up renewables and battery storage, as recommended, not "false solutions" like "green hydrogen," "renewable natural gas" · Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. · Incentivize agrivoltaics and require NYSERDA and Ag and Markets to produce educational materials and guidance on agrivoltaics. Increasing the Political Will through education Launch statewide k-12 education & public information campaign around climate, renewable energy, and job training opportunities. Just Transition · A successful transition to a clean power economy requires social justice. · There must be sufficient, dedicated funding to support an affordable transition for low- and moderate-income households ($1 billion/yr) · ASAP: Process to set targets for reducing fossil fuel generation emissions needs to start now. · Ensure fossil plants disproportionately harming disadvantaged communities close first. · Ensure adequate funding for localities affected by plant closure. ? · Ensure plant-owner responsibility for site remediation. ? · Incentivize/prioritize re-use of sites for battery storage if community supports it (or renewables if sufficient land is available). Stategies to internalize costs of GHG emissions economy-wide or in specific sectors · Carbon pricing: Directly prices emissions by establishing a price/ton paid by regulated entities (e.g., fossil fuel power plants, fossil fuel providers for heating/transportation) · Cap-and-invest program: Indirectly prices emissions through the market by capping emissions at a certain level and requiring regulated entities to purchase emissions allowances to match their emissions. (Ex: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) · Clean Energy Supply standard: Requires fuel providers to reduce carbon intensity of fuels they sell, either by blending lower carbon fuels or by buying credits from electricity provider to displace fossil fuels. Would be progressively ratcheted down to zero emissions. · Any strategy must be designed to avoid overburdening LMI households & Disadvantaged Communities. Finally, the Public Service Law must be aligned with the Climate Law. There must be no more fossil infrastructure expansion. -- Lori |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Luzi [email protected] 50 Autumn Creek Lane, Apt. K East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Justin Pastor [email protected] 24 Beckett Park Warren, PA 16365 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Tim Silverstein [email protected] 5350 Holly Glen Court Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Andrew Steinbrenner 3989 Buffalo Rd Rochester, NY 14624 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. I would like to be able to read the Draft Scoping Plan that is supposed to be available at climate.ny.gov but the website is not working. How can we be expected to read and make comments if the draft is not available to read? The draft was supposed to be available January 1st for a 120 day public comment period. We have already lost well over 30 days of review period. Thank you, Steve Lloyd [email protected] Sent from my iPad | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cameron Nichols [email protected] 85 Braeloch Crossing Penfield, NY 14526 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Eric Hauser 439 Reserve Rd Buffalo, NY 14224 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, Carol Wittcop 6023 Miller Rd Lockport, NY 14094 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher f. Cook [email protected] 1 relief st. Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, paul witosky [email protected] 6363 main st williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Josh braun [email protected] 1 relief st Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ann M Sullivan [email protected] 1 Lynchburg Ct Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeffrey Morris [email protected] 19 Wik Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joel H Green [email protected] 163 Water St Fredonia, NY 14063 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul white [email protected] 10515 Holland Glenwood Holland, NY 14080 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, EDWARD B ECKERT II [email protected] 495 CRESCENT AVENUE BUFFALO, NY 14214 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard A Kapuza [email protected] 6363 main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John Rimlinger [email protected] 70 Blacksmith Dr East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John C Sadowski [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville NY, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Marcus,Arthur | I am encouraging this legislation to further goals of the CLCPA: GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUDGET New York State Budget should provide for $1 billion annually (from existing and new funds) for grants and financing to fund all-electric and electric-ready affordable housing in and for Disadvantaged Communities. Necessary to ensure equitable transition to all-electric housing and to improve housing conditions for the state’s most vulnerable residents. ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING ACT (S6843A|A8431) ADVANCED BUILDING, APPLIANCE AND EQUIPMENT STANDARDS ACT (S7176|A8143 ) GAS TRANSITION AND AFFORDABLE ENERGY ACT (S8198 ) FOSSIL-FREE HEATING TAX CREDIT AND SALES TAX EXEMPTION (S3864|A7493 & S642A|A8147) | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Concerning the future restrictions on natural gas appliances. I bought my currant house because it has natural gas. Prior and to owning it I had used propane. Years ago at my previous house I did have a electric range, electric heat for backup wood being primary heat and electric hot water heater and electric dryer. That is when electric was 5 cents a kilowatt hr. Hated the electric range to cook on and that was the first to be replaced with a propane range. To anybody that likes to cook I would highly recommend it. Then it became extremely expensive to use the electric heat. So that was removed, and a propane boiler and hot water baseboard installed. and the last to be replaced was the electric hot water heater with a propane water heater. Then I bought a house in town with natural gas and it's a glorious thing. when the power goes out witch it does much more than it used to. I can still cook and have heat and run the house with a very small generator. I worked as an electrician and I love electric heat for the fact that there are no moving parts and no vent. The part I don't like is you can't afford to use it at the current electric prices. Presently I have two gas hot water heaters two gas dryers a gas kitchen range and three 50,000 btu boilers and a gas unit heater in the shop. I intend to stay with natural gas if I'm going to continue to live here and not bankrupt myself, and by here I mean NY state. I would need a new 400-amp service to be total electric. And anymore when you upgrade the service engineering at NYSEG will want to know your max draw and power usage before approving and I don't see this going anywhere as I don't believe there isn't power enough or capacity on the primary or secondary lines to do this without major problems if your dream comes. There needs to be some serious investment by the power company in the grid and new generation sources like nuclear and natural gas plants, you know things that work. and lowering the electric rates would help your vision. I guess my one question is how much money or assistance is available to get home owners electric services upgraded so they can be total electric? Mr Harold Polmanteer [email protected] 258 Main Street Hornell NY 14843 Steuben County Chapter 18. Gas System Transition Chapter 13. Electricity Chapter 5. Overarching Purpose and Objectives of the Scoping Plan Chapter 3. New York’s Climate Leadership |
||
| Thomas,Lunt | How stupid can you be. Have you not read about what happened in Texas. What a grand stand act this is. I will vote to replace all of you that I can. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Susan Sorce [email protected] 3705 Fuller Ave Blasdell, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Gary C Holly [email protected] 1261 Peppertree Drive Derby, NY 14047 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Thomas P Ring [email protected] 9815 Tottenham Ave Clarence, NY 14032 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick William Gerrity [email protected] 201 Evane Drive Depew, NY 14043 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Jim,Hyman | Let's get real, it's not practical. Offer incentives for alternatives but we need fossil fuels. | ||
| Kelly,Smith | Although I support development of solar energy I have concerns about the use of windmills and wind turbines on birds. Until it can be proven that the windmills are safe for individual birds and flocks, and that wind farms will not adversely affect migration patterns, I think the emphasis should be kept on non-wind renewables. Proposals to attach cameras that would film potential bird strikes and bird kills or investigate the areas underneath wind electric facilities are inadequate, for they ignore the fact that birds may be injured either fatally or in a way that leaves them disadvantaged in their ability to survive and reproduce long-term – and yet fly away from the original site of impact. In such cases there may be no physical evidence on the ground and video may not indicate the extent of the injury. Additionally I ask you to consider the problems involved in using wind turbines in areas that may experience freezing conditions – including areas that only sporadically have such adverse weather, which can cause severe disruption or damage if homes and businesses are left without electricity for extended periods. For these reasons I cannot support additional use of wind power at this time and I urge you to deemphasize or pause such plans in favor of solar projects. Sincerely, Kelly Smith | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Charyle Smith [email protected] 410 South East Street Moweaqua, IL 62550 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Anthony Lewicki [email protected] 138 Davinci CT Hockessin, DE 19707 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Chris Carhart [email protected] 6397 Hamilton Hill Rd Hamilton, NY 13346 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Courtney Wlasniewski [email protected] 10172 Lackawanna Rd Dansville, NY 14437 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Charles wlasniewsli [email protected] 10172 Lackawanna rd Dansville, NY 14437 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christine bloom [email protected] 239 cook rd E aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jennifer Domagalski [email protected] 1590 Southwestern Blvd E26 West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Staebell [email protected] 33 east home rd Bowmansvill, NY 14026 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mark webb [email protected] 791 deer park avenue N. Babylon, NY 11703 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Salvatore Mogavero [email protected] 1348 sturgeon point rd Derby, NY 14047 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Grant,Fisher | My concerns relate to: I. Disaster Management II. Retirement of NG Plants and Pipelines III. Electrical Grid Maintenance IV. Cyber Security of the Electrical Grid V. Electrical Grid Efficiency VI. Building Electrical Monitoring VII. Construction for Expansion and Maintenance Two page detailed questions are attached. Grant K Fisher LWV Utica-Rome, NY (Member) Registered Architect (TX) Registered Interior Designer (TX) US Green Building Council LEED-AP Construction Specifications Institute - CDT 315.337.2655 | has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mykhailo Zabrodin [email protected] 4511 mollenauer st Bethel park, PA 15102 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Barger [email protected] 933 , Halday Run Road Oil City, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Walter H.Kasperczyk [email protected] 3340 Angle Rd ORCHARD PARK, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mark Hooper [email protected] 6382 Mayflower Ln Lake View, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John king [email protected] 962 main st Lancaster, MA 01523 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patricia Yuhnke [email protected] 4740 Parker Road Unit 23 Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Valerie Hawthorn [email protected] 2186 Shadow Lane Lakeview, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Pierson [email protected] 122 Yarnell St Kane, PA 16735 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William L Dadey [email protected] 143 Brooklea Dr East Aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Stein [email protected] 24302 Lippert Rd Meadville, PA 16335 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. I have a new gas furnace, gas hot water tank, gas dryer, gas stove, and gas fireplace. To replace all these with electric retrofits would cost me at least $20,000. And when the electricity goes out, I can still heat my house with the gas fireplace. Plus my taxes will go up to subsidize those who can't afford to retrofit their homes. And are renters prepared for the increased rents that landlords will have to charge to recoup these retrofit costs? What about all the WNY restaurants that use natural gas for cooking? I don't know of many commercial electric pizza ovens. Won't this also depress housing prices as buyers have to factor in retrofiitting the gas services in the house they are planning to buy. Sincerely, Paul Malachowski [email protected] 67 Cove Creek Run West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. I have a new gas furnace, gas hot water tank, gas dryer, gas stove, and gas fireplace. To replace all these with electric retrofits would cost me at least $20,000. And when the electricity goes out, I can still heat my house with the gas fireplace. Plus my taxes will go up to subsidize those who can't afford to retrofit their homes. And are renters prepared for the increased rents that landlords will have to charge to recoup these retrofit costs? What about all the WNY restaurants that use natural gas for cooking? I don't know of many commercial electric pizza ovens. Won't this also depress housing prices as buyers have to factor in retrofiitting the gas services in the house they are planning to buy. Sincerely, Paul Malachowski [email protected] 67 Cove Creek Run West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick Boyle [email protected] 5345 Eastwood Ave Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick Boyle [email protected] 5345 Eastwood Ave Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joette Kliszak [email protected] 53 Harvey Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joette Kliszak [email protected] 53 Harvey Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Clifford Mason [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Clifford Mason [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Martin [email protected] 78 Bramhill Ct East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Martin [email protected] 78 Bramhill Ct East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Aimee DeLizio [email protected] 826 Williamson Rd Meadville, PA 16335 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sharon Kuczmarski [email protected] 315 Wimbledon Ct West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jim Delaney [email protected] 15 Nicole Ct E. Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Kondor [email protected] 39 French Oaks Ln East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Raymond Witte [email protected] 4 Beatrix Cir Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard McCarthy [email protected] 8587 Thomas rd Rome, NY 13440 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michelle Lowery [email protected] 34 Fairmont Ave Salamanca, NY 14779 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Travis Crosby [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, HOWARD ROSE [email protected] 174 ANDERSON PL BUFFALO, NY 14222 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Michalski [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matt Eckert [email protected] 6363 Main street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Roger Morris [email protected] 519 Euclid Av North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Margaret Sroka [email protected] 40 Sturbridge Ln Buffalo, NY 14221-5927 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joe wickett [email protected] 6363 main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Redfoot [email protected] 6363 main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cynthia Stachewicz [email protected] 66 W Main St Lot49 Corfu, NY 14036 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Thomas D. Tobin [email protected] 295 Highland Ave. Hamburg, NY 14075-4446 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joseph Schaub [email protected] 2232 Clinton St Rd Attica, NY 14011 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. As a customer of national fuel for the past 49 years I can say that we have never lost gas service but can't say the same for NYSEG our electric provider . Energy service and reliability is a major concern to me as a customer. Sincerely, lawrence giermek [email protected] 6369 benning rd west falls, NY 14170 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Tom Jeziorski [email protected] 976 Sullivan road Alden, NY 14004 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Donald Giordano [email protected] 6436 Versailles rd Lakeview, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Laura Troutman [email protected] 176 Stillwell Avenue Kenmore, NY 14217 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Bell [email protected] 1 relief st Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Donald Giroux [email protected] 8 Orchard Avenue Blasdell, NY 14219-1106 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Kenneth R. Wood Sincerely, Kenneth Wood [email protected] 24 Christopher Dr West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Carol mcmahon [email protected] 45 Creekview dr West Seneca ny, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Amy bloom [email protected] 40 Brendel ave Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dan Broadwell [email protected] Po Box 27 2276 Elton Rd. Ionia, NY 14475 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Randy Bloom Jr. [email protected] 6222 South Abbott Rd. Orcahrd Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, Dear Senator Robert Ortt, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely Melodie McEvoy Sincerely, Melodie McEvoy [email protected] 2141 River Rd TRLR 15 Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Whitney [email protected] 25687 U.S. Highway 6 and 19 Cambridge Springs, PA 16403 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ron Palmowski [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsvile, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ken Sanders [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Hayden carr [email protected] 1828 Route 97 Apt 2 Waterford, PA 16441 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jean Cressman [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Anna Frankowski [email protected] 176 Dubonnet Drive Depew, NY 14043 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicole Ferguson [email protected] 8723 East Eden Road Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Zach fox [email protected] 1 relief st Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, dustin dunkle [email protected] 1 relief st Oil city, PA 16341 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kyle Hanna [email protected] 7 summit st Oil city, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Trevor Hicks [email protected] 7 Summit St. Oil City, PA 16301 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Lorenz [email protected] 104 garden parkway Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Harold Hazen [email protected] 71 Applewood rd. Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Kloss [email protected] 75 Northland Rd Rew, PA 16744 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Elizabeth Dobson [email protected] 4649 Clark St Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Steve Wagner [email protected] 66 Beckford Ct. Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason runyan [email protected] 10000 krider rd Meadville, PA 16335 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Shawn McGuigan [email protected] 4834 Livingston Rd Jamestown, PA 16134 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. I'm a former energy industry employee; I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul R. Mundy [email protected] 10320 First St. Dunkirk, NY 14048 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns with the CAC's Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. As a former energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. The public projections of costs to consumers being as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone is eye opening and does not account for the non-monetary costs should the power grid be unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cynthia S Turner [email protected] 2531 Nicole Dr Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Evan C Dougherty [email protected] 5180 Florek rd Edinboro, PA 16412 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Travis Moore [email protected] 10229 Forty rd Gowanda, NY 14070 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Josh A Kolcun [email protected] 3085 Mallory Road Cochranton, PA 16314 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Andrew Miller [email protected] 19158, S. Mosiertown Rd Saegertown, PA 16433 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Edward Barnes [email protected] 8572 Shumla rd Cassadaga, NY 14718 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michael Franklin [email protected] 10213 CREEK RD FORESTVILLE, NY 14062 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Caldwell [email protected] 2278 Derby Rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jesse Skrzynski [email protected] 2087 New Jerusalem rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kalen taylor [email protected] 36 East Ave Springville, NY 14141 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Martin Pleace [email protected] 6461 Hackberry dr Lakeview, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jim Schoenhals [email protected] 6597 Michael Road Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William kraft [email protected] 229 price st Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, James Sager [email protected] 1998 Vermont st North Collins, NY 14111 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Galen Czarnecki [email protected] 89 Tindle ave West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Thomas Caldwell [email protected] 2278 Derby Rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Council, I DO NOT agree on any of your scooping plans regarding climate act! kathleen Sent from my iPad | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Scouten [email protected] 6363 Main Street Willamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Gretchen Laskowski [email protected] 686 Casey Road East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Karen,Miller | The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by over $90 billion. By eliminating fossil fuel combustion provides enormous health benefits. “Improvements in air quality can avoid thousands of premature deaths, thousands of non-fatal heart attacks, thousands of other hospitalizations, thousands of asthma-related emergency room visits and hundreds of thousands of lost work days.” There would be a Just Transition with new jobs created, wage increase in middle wage positions. This plan establishes a pathway to NY’s Climate Law’s emissions targets and equity goals. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michael Argauer [email protected] 2300 Three Rod Rd East Aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kyle Swartz [email protected] 10205 Maltbie Rd Gowanda, NY 14070-9610 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Steven,Bard | I have just learned about this plan and will be looking into it more. But here is a comment to start with... We may need to change behavior of some folks, encourage them to reduce their "demand", in order to meet the greenhouse goals. Is there some way to include education activity in setting goals? | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, THERESA DOUGHERTY [email protected] 2658 COUNTY ROAD 22 ANDOVER, NY 14806 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Council, I am writing to share my concerns with the Climate Action Council's proposed Scoping Plan. As an employer and ratepayer, I understand we must make changes to safeguard our environment. However, as written, the Plan would significantly harm upstate New York. Banning natural gas - a sustainable, low-carbon fuel - would force New Yorkers off the primary resource used to heat their homes and other daily activities. The cost of retrofitting upstate New York for a gas-free future would be astronomical. New York should also not turn its back on the existing and resilient underground natural gas infrastructure to ensure energy delivery is reliable even in bad weather. A carbon pricing system or an emissions cap would add such a significant cost increase to businesses that many would head for the exits, causing economic damage without making any meaningful changes to those businesses' emissions. Enacting an Extended Producer Responsibility system would make manufacturing more expensive and also increase the cost of consumer goods. Energy in New York needs to remain reliable and affordable. But, if this plan is adopted, New York will spend a fortune to electrify every piece of our state without being prepared to produce that electric capacity as planned. In the process, the state would shun a fuel source that is cheap, safe, dependable, plentiful, and low-emission. While much of the Council's Plan is praiseworthy, there are pieces of the plan that would devastate our economy. We must strike the right balance between protecting our planet and safeguarding our economy. Please remove these harmful elements of the Draft Scoping Plan so that New York can move toward a sustainable future without energy becoming more expensive or less reliable. Sincerely, John G. Schmidt Jr. 887 Parkside Ave Buffalo, NY 14216 [email protected] | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Miranda Henderson [email protected] 3616 south park Avenue blasdell, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, BETHANY CATALANO [email protected] 6363 MAIN STREET WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Guy Peterson [email protected] 393 Taft Ave Angola, NY 14006 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard A. Patterson [email protected] 296 Edgewood Avenue Town of Tonawanda, NY 14223 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Andrew Driscoll [email protected] 6868 PUTNAM DR. DERBY, NY 14047 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Justin Brewster [email protected] 538 Versailles rd Irving, NY 14081 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brennen Brogan [email protected] 321 Taunton pl. Buffalo, NY 14216 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Steve Alderton [email protected] 56 Meadow View Lane Brookville, PA 15825 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cliff Park [email protected] 42 Oak St Brookville, PA 15825 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Seth Walker [email protected] 44 Pennsylvania Ave Brookville, PA 15825 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kyle Potter [email protected] 6363 main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Graf [email protected] 77 Minden Dr Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matt nosel [email protected] 9 Evergreen Blvd Warren, PA 16365 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Amendola [email protected] 6336 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Warren bowman [email protected] 6363 main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Andrew Ellis [email protected] 8991 Dutch Hill Rd Little Valley, NY 14755 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christian Schiffer [email protected] 244 Warren Rd. Franklin, PA 16323 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Walter Hughes [email protected] 2479 West River Road Grand Island, NY 14072 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mark Laskowski [email protected] 686 Casey Rd East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Monika Duszenko [email protected] 108 Fargo Ave Buffalo, NY 14201 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick Dougherty [email protected] 2658 County Road 22 Andover, NY 14806 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher gilmour [email protected] 84 brookwood dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dennis Colarusso [email protected] P.O. Box 242 Holland, NY 14080 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jennifer Zangerle [email protected] 8807 Woodside Drive Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John haberer [email protected] 10508 dissonant hwy Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Debbie Dispense [email protected] 2979 E Main Rd Dunkirk, NY 14048 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, David Howard [email protected] 10062 Trevett Rd Springville, NY 14141 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jan mischel [email protected] 3393 Emerling dr Blasdell, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, zeke olsen [email protected] 6363 main st williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dan Cornman [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Janet Loy [email protected] 392 Oakdale Road Sigel, PA 15860 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matt irvine [email protected] 6363 main street williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, DAniel Cornman [email protected] 504 Zephyr Ave Erie, PA 16505 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, mark Gilbert [email protected] 6363 main st williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sarah Fix [email protected] 10062 Trevett Rd Springville, NY 14141 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Blasio [email protected] 144 Wimbledon ct West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kelly Powley [email protected] 5481 Allen dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Andrew Pappal [email protected] 1133 Saunders Settlement Road Niagara Falls, NY 14305 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sheila polak [email protected] 146 Main Street Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Zielinski [email protected] 7142 lewis road Holland, NY 14080 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kyle Kilianski [email protected] 2842 north Sheldon rd Strykersville ny, NY 14145 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Hiam [email protected] 11124 bullis rd Marilla, NY 14102 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michael Burnett [email protected] 2291 New Jerusalem Rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher czech [email protected] 10745 Erie rd Irving, NY 14081 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Trenton Kunes [email protected] 676 Mountain Run Rd Dubois, PA 15801 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Gruber [email protected] 6363 Main st Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Tristan Tyler [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John Powley [email protected] 187 Rossler ave Cheektowaga, NY 14206 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul Ortolano paulortolan[email protected] 12181 Old Main Rd. Silver Creek, NY 14136 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Trevor R Wood [email protected] 12182 Cottage-Markham rd SOUTH DAYTON, NY 14138 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Rocque [email protected] 1829 middle road Silver creek, NY 14136 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Kowal [email protected] 9688 Chautauqua rd, Fredonia, NY 14063 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Thomas hull [email protected] 6745 powers rd Orchard prk, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Timothy Hacic [email protected] 4233 Glenwillow Dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher Braidich [email protected] 2225 Lake Rd Silver Creek, NY 14136 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, David Callesto [email protected] 3805 Dartmouth Street Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, James Rzyrkowski [email protected] 9643 Tonawanda Creek rd Clarence Center, NY 14032 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Corry powley [email protected] 5481 , Allen Dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joseph mischel [email protected] 2229 new Jerusalem rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Abby Soto-Pacheco [email protected] 6363 Main St. Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Salvatore Sciascia [email protected] 3875 Teachers lane Apt 8 Orchards Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kelly Evert [email protected] 1272 Cleveland Dr Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Newman [email protected] 244 Bissell Ave Depew, NY 14043 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Bryan Wallace [email protected] 8211 Munson Ave Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Julia Wesolowski [email protected] 118 Edgewood ave Tonawanda, NY 14223 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brittany patterson [email protected] 625 Niagara Falls blvd Amherst, NY 14226 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ric General [email protected] 185 Buffalo St, Tower at back stairs Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sharon Long [email protected] 6656 Olean Rd South Wales, NY 14139 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Donna Harris [email protected] 32 Chestnut Corner Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Anne,Conway | I completely support the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. I am particularly interested in implementing the following recommendations: BUILDINGS: 1) Zero emissions standard for replacement of fossil fuel equipment at the end of their useful life 2) Require all electric new construction for most residential buildings by 2024 and for community and all buildings over four stories by 2027. 3) End fossil fuel infrastructure expansion 4) End utility and NYSERDA marketing of natural gas and ramp up positive marketing of heat pumps TRANSPORTATION 1) Electrify all school buses by 2035 2) Impose a 'feebate' on the purchase of fossil fuel cars to encourage EV purchases 3) Pass legislation to allow direct sales of EVs to consumers 4) Amend building codes to require new buildings to be EV ready 5) Move up proposed target for 0 emissions for state passenger fleet from 2035 to 2030 ELECTRICITY 1) Incentivize agrivoltaics to integrate land use and energy 2) Integrate climate change curricula into K-12 curricula 3) Launch public information campaign on the climate crisis and benefits of clean energy 4) Fund research on the long term storage of renewable energy 5) Develop incentives to encourage rooftop and parking lot solar paired with storage 6 ) ASAP--Set targets for reducing fossil fuel generation emissions WASTE 1)Require per ton surcharge on all waste to fund the 3 R's (reduce, reuse, recycle) 2) Expand container deposit programs 3)Require a minimum level of recycled content in certain products and packaging FUNDING-- A carbon fee and rebate program should be enacted to help to fund these actions. Impose a fee on fossil fuel companies and return the money to low and middle income households. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, christopher kushner [email protected] 7470 ton crk rd lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jocelyn Brehm [email protected] 1613 97th Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeff Morgan [email protected] 102 N Vine St Napoleon, OH 43545 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Angela,Wollschlager | I am writing today with concern over the CLCPA. It is clear through multiple studies shown in the CLCPA; that NYS is in need of a cleaner, more renewable way to power their communities. Utilizing cleaner and renewable sources of energy can have a substantial impact on the rapidly changing climate and helping to ensure less damage to our environment. As a voting resident of NYS, a purchasing manager for a Hearth business that relies greatly on sales of gas-powered units, and a social worker who deals with low-income families; the CLCPA will be detrimental and extremely costly to businesses and residents alike in NY. As of today, there is no clear cost analysis on the changes that are to be implemented in the next eight years. There is no sustainable plan for handling reliability issues – especially in Upstate and Western New York, where frigid temperatures are a part of our normal life for four to six months a year. Please consider adjusting the CLCPA to include: incorporating increased energy efficiency on new construction. Using hybrid dual fuel for both heating and cooling needs. Also, utilizing renewable natural gas, and incorporation of low and no-carbon fuels – much of this is already in action, and much more feasible to implement changes to that will increase energy efficiency, lower consumption, and remain cost-effective for NY residents and businesses. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Josh Maring [email protected] 6363 Main street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Scheifla III [email protected] 1169 Tonawanda St Buffalo, NY 14207 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am writing today with concern over the CLCPA. It is clear through multiple studies shown in the CLCPA; that NYS is in need of a cleaner, more renewable way to power their communities. Utilizing cleaner and renewable sources of energy can have a substantial impact on the rapidly changing climate and helping to ensure less damage to our environment. As a voting resident of NYS and someone who works in the Hearth Industry – which relies strongly on the sale of gas powered appliances; the CLCPA will be detrimental to our economy, our individual welfare, and is shown to be unreliable in our particular climate. As of today, there is no clear cost analysis on NYS residents and businesses for the changes to be implemented in the next 8 years. There is no sustainable plan for handling reliability issues in Upstate, and Western NY in the case of extreme temperatures, which we encounter for months at a time. Please consider adjusting the CLCPA to include: incorporating increased energy efficiency on new construction. Using hybrid dual fuel for both heating and cooling needs. Also, utilizing renewable natural gas, and incorporation of low and no-carbon fuels – much of this is already in action, and much more feasible to implement changes to that will increase energy efficiency, lower consumption, and remain cost-effective for NY residents and businesses. Thank you, for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Hamman Sent fromMail for Windows |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert J Gallagher [email protected] 4 cloister ct Blasdell, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Leon Washington [email protected] 691 South Division st Buffalo, NY 14210 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Aaron Hoffman [email protected] 15 Country Pl Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Gregory Mitri [email protected] 1704 Lakeview Rd Lake View, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Michael Roy [email protected] 10 St Joan Ln Cheektowaga, NY 14227 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Marc kobylski [email protected] 88 Marilyn dr West seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Toni Tosh [email protected] 6363 main street williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Karen Denz [email protected] 274 Wellingwood Dr East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cody Rapp [email protected] 761 Busti-Sugar Grove Rd Jamestown, NY 14701 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sean OBrien [email protected] 8 Burning Bush Way Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Darryl Cauley [email protected] 1141 garden ave Niagara falls, NY 14305 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Kempski [email protected] 57 Brookwood Drive Buffalo, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, COLETTE MINNOLERA [email protected] 1241 OSTRANDER RD EAST AURORA, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeff Fye [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Bryan Fremont [email protected] 2903 Pearce rd North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Lance King [email protected] 51 Coralwood Court Cheektowaga, NY 14215 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, William Erdman Jr. [email protected] 20 Pasadena Place Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Evelyn Tracy [email protected] 4699 Curtis Ct. N. Lewiston, NY 14092 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick Tracy [email protected] 750 Onondaga Street, Apt 104 LEWISTON, NY 14092 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joseph Wittmann [email protected] 49 Middlesex Rd. Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jordin Tracy [email protected] 905 Sullivan Court Lewiston, NY 14092 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ed Damico [email protected] 46 Burbank Drive Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Shelby Graham [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Diethrick [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas Powers [email protected] 378 Collins Ave West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas Stalnecker [email protected] 3672 Horton Ave. Buffalo, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Scott Linhardt [email protected] 380 Brookwood Dr Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Judy guffy [email protected] 4441 willow mist dr Dayton, OH 45424 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mike Farrell [email protected] 10840 warner gulf road chaffee, NY 14030 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. As an employee of National Fuel Gas (NFG), a Chautauqua County Legislator and Chairman of the Chautauqua County Energy Committee, I have closely followed the developments related to the CLCPA and the Draft Scoping Plan. As I travel Western New York speaking with industrial, commercial and residential energy users, I have not met anyone that opposes the effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We are all working toward the same goal! It seems that being focused on the same goal is a monumental accomplishment in today’s era and I’m happy to comment that these are my findings. Of course, the next challenge is how do we achieve this goal in the manner that maximizes benefit to all; New Yorkers, Americans and the entire planet. I have worked in the energy industry for the last 20 years. A large part of my work has been in support of conservation efforts for industrial customers in Western New York. Most of these efforts have been focused on the transition to higher energy efficiency across the industrial and large commercial sector through implementation of new technologies, boiler decentralization and the installation of direct-fired high efficiency equipment. I have also supported several conversion-to-natural gas projects of large coal and oil burning facilities – significantly reducing GHG emissions. In part, this has been made possible by low cost, abundant natural gas. Reducing GHG emissions is a long-standing conversation and successful effort at NFG. In addition to conservation efforts, my employer, National Fuel Gas, has shifted my focus over the last 3-5 years to find additional methods to reduce GHG, including Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Hydrogen Enhanced Natural Gas (HENG). We have supported projects at dairy farms and landfills and I’m pleased that we have successfully supported the capture of fugitive methane emissions and delivered RNG into our distribution system for productive work. RNG is having a direct impact on New York’s States effort to reduce GHG emissions. We are also working to develop hydrogen cluster demonstrations and I feel that we will be successful in further developing this technology in support of reduced GHG emissions. I have spoken with numerous industrial natural gas users in Western New York. They have reported that electrification will force them to move their energy intensive operations to their other facilities that exist outside of New York and/or relocate. Given the threat of full electrification, they are already considering this risk when making decisions about where to expand their operation and invest capital. As a taxpayer and a Chautauqua County Legislator, I’m concerned about our already eroding tax base and how the loss of jobs and industry is impacting our tax rates and potential budget shortfalls. Please consider developing a coalition that will rein in the political desires of the draft scoping document and focus your attention on the impact that this document will bring to the citizens and business in New York. We need to use diverse energy options that include RNG and HENG in New York’s energy policy. Please consider all options in order to best balance balance air quality, the environment, affordability, resiliency and reliability. Please make the end-users and our citizen’s needs the priority and consider educational outreach to voters so they can understand recent successes and the need for an all-of-the-above approach to New York’s energy planning. Please help me shift the effort to solutions that are sustainable with priority given to the needs of end-users and citizens. Thank you for taking the time to read this and thanks for your commitment to public service. Sincerely, Ken Lawton, Sr. Technical Energy Consultant, National Fuel Gas 30 Sunset Ave. Lakewood, NY 716-720-1204 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Tyler Scutt [email protected] 2754 Helmhold road Wellsville, NY 14895 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Marlana Dembik [email protected] 115 Idlewood Dr Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sarah Washington [email protected] 6260 Ekchardt Road Unit #34 Lake View, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kurt Meighen [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeff Grice [email protected] 119 Orchard Beach Drive North East, PA 16428 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kenneth Evans [email protected] 5218 Woodbridge Court Erie, PA 16509 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Keith Normandin [email protected] 118 edgewood ave Buffalo, NY 14223 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Glenn Barlow [email protected] 3856 Ransomville rd Ransomville, NY 14131 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Daisy Pilarski [email protected] 2484 Hemlock Rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Timothy Banta [email protected] Rt 30 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Wendy Smith [email protected] 86 Simme Rd Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Lindsay Norton [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jennifer Schaller [email protected] 6901 Kimberly Dr Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Rebecca Wells [email protected] 1054 Charlesgate Circle East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Melissa Robison [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, LISA BURNEISEN [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joe koberger [email protected] 285 county route 41 Massena, NY 13662 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Julie Cosenza [email protected] 27 Westcliff Dr West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Wargo [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jodi Huff [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas Patterson [email protected] 371 Sanders rd Buffalo, NY 14216 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Josh Ennis [email protected] 34 Loch Lee Buffalo, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Josh Earsing [email protected] 1776 center rd west seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Alex Lent [email protected] 282 Saranac Ave Buffalo, NY 14216 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ann Lejca [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ann Lejca [email protected] 23 McGurk Ave Blasdell, NY 14219 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christopher Cavanaugh [email protected] 485 Wehrle Dr, Apt 2 Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Gullo [email protected] 11 Traceway Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Scott Knight [email protected] 56 Maple Street Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Denise Smerkar [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good morning, I am writing to express concerns with some of the recommendations contained in the draft Climate Action Council Scoping Plan that was just released. Something as substantial as shifting our energy use requires a certain amount of consideration for the impacts that will be experienced by residents in our great state. The PDF of the draft Scoping Plan is 341 pages by itself. The end goal is excellent -- having a carbon neutral economy -- but the path to get there is flawed. Please reconsider the following comments: 1) The draft Scoping Plan ignores the existing infrastructure that can be used to the advantage of everyone. Natural gas piping is fully integrated into residential, business, and commercial structures. If this gas can be supplemented or ideally replaced with renewable natural gas, hydrogen blends, or (best case) gas created using CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture and utilization technologies), very little needs to be done by the residents and businesses of NYS. The transition would be seamless. The report should highlight how the state can welcome this research at its universities and embrace companies that can implement these technologies. 2) There are no cost estimates for consumer energy conversions. I have an older boiler heating my home in the City of Buffalo, NY and I cannot imagine how expensive it would be to make the jump to electricity as the fuel to keep my home warm during cold winters. In the City of Buffalo alone, there are hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses that would need their appliances converted. How are state residents not going to be saddled with these enormous costs? What about our state's poorest? 3) Regarding the fuel to heat a home, electricity costs are 3.5 times higher than natural gas. Additionally, the vast majority of homes in the Western New York area are heated with natural gas, ensuring affordable heating during the cold and harsh winters experienced in the region. I understand that natural gas is a carbon-based fuel, but it simply cannot be ignored and should be treated as a "stepping stone" to get to a carbon-neutral future. The infrastructure is already in place (piping and appliances) and costs to transport an equivalent amount of energy is significantly lower through pipes than through electric lines. 4) Natural gas service bans are shortsighted. This places an enormous burden on residents and developers to incorporate vastly more expensive pieces of equipment in their installations. Further, it eliminates the choices that consumers have. For example, a natural gas service ban would completely eliminate the option of a dual-fuel heat pump to be used to heat a residence, an appliance that significantly reduces a home's carbon footprint while keeping costs low. 5) Gas-burning appliance bans are untenable. Establishing dates for the ban of use of gas-fired appliances including furnaces, boilers, stoves, and hot water tanks is shortsighted. Again, this places an enormous burden on residents in our state at a time when costs for everything are increasing. The better alternative would be to make sure that all options are available for consumers and make the market favor clean technologies through prioritizing low energy costs and reliability. 6) The electric grid needs extreme investments in the near term to ensure reliability. As more electricity demand burdens the power grid, energy storage (e.g., large batteries) and additional capacity needs to be developed. These changes should be done well before residences and consumers are required to make the energy shift. The last thing we'd want is for homes to go cold during the wintertime. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew Emhof 124 North Drive Buffalo, NY 14216 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cathy Knight [email protected] 56 Maple St Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Timothy Young [email protected] 157 Springfield Avenue Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sean Kovar [email protected] 4530 Eckhardt Rd Eden, NY 14057 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Stephen Keller [email protected] 400 Woolston Rd Pittsford, NY 14534 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dan Czechowicz [email protected] 153 Paul Drive Amherst, NY 14228 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Thomas Tabaczynski [email protected] 116 Denise Dr Cheektowaga, NY 14227 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Marcus Steck [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mark Shuey [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Denise Grimm [email protected] 8120 Fredonia Stockton Rd Stockton, NY 14784 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Derrik Grimm [email protected] 8120 fredonia stockton rd stockton, NY 14784 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Linda Crawford [email protected] 625 Weeks Rd Panama, NY 14767 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kathleen Vozga [email protected] 5830 Strickler Road Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ryan Perrello [email protected] 31 Meadow Drive East Aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brent Hoover [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Alan Lockwood [email protected] 7493 miller hollow rd little genessee, NY 14754 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Stephanie winspear [email protected] 339 Stanley St North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Timothy DeSanto [email protected] 6363 Main St. Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Erin Davison [email protected] 150 Vincennes Street Buffalo, NY 14204 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul Dominiak [email protected] 56 Cove Creek Run West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kenneth Webster [email protected] 27 Weathersfield Lane Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brett Bell [email protected] 11500 Matteson Corners Rd Holland, NY 14080 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicole Sexton [email protected] 440 Park Club Ln Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ray Harris [email protected] 32 Chestnut Corner Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Laura Simonelli [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Zane Hackett [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Debra patterson [email protected] 625 Niagara Falls blvd Amherst, NY 14226 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christen Homa [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Bush [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Lynn Halicki [email protected] 9271 Griswold Street Akron, NY 14001 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, catherine Normandin [email protected] 118 edgewood ave buffalo, NY 14223-2833 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Shawna ahrens [email protected] 20 castlewood drive Cheektowaga, NY 14227 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Christian Kanaley [email protected] 149 Swan St Apt 503 Buffalo, NY 14203 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Manjinder Sandhur [email protected] 5827 Forest Creek Dr east amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Sarah Mugel [email protected] 7387 Feddick Rd Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Erica Dougherty [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Fabian Sanders [email protected] 9 Hemenway Rd Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John Buczkowski [email protected] 2708 Wilson Cambria Road Wilson, NY 14172 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas Hartshorn [email protected] 4535 Vandusen rd Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeffrey napier [email protected] 6211 Eaglechase dr Sanb, NY 14132 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kara Baker [email protected] 6745 Old Beattie Road Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, A lattanzio [email protected] 18 old orchard lane orchard park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Doug Long [email protected] 6652 Olean Rd South Wales, NY 14139 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Devaun Farnham-Dejesus [email protected] 2760 Niagara Falls Blvd Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Amy Lei Phillips [email protected] 443 Linwood Ave Buffalo, NY 14209 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ryan fouchie [email protected] 205 lincroft Hamburg, NY 14218 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Tabor [email protected] 2966 Grand Island Blvd apt b4 Grand island, NY 14072 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin normandin [email protected] 339 Stanley st NY, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nicholas S Brehm [email protected] 1613 97th st Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Justin Stewart [email protected] 160 bridle lane Elma, NY 14059 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Vicki Kohl [email protected] 6003 Webster Rd Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Linda Stelmaszyk [email protected] 2175 Williston Heights Drive Marilla, NY 14102 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ashleigh Kinney [email protected] 1070 Schopper Rd East Aurora, NY 14052 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brandon Sweet [email protected] 6723 Barnes Rd Stockton, NY 14784 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, GAIL GIFFORD [email protected] 5602 Coachmans Ln Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robert Schneggenburger [email protected] 3329 Joshua Ln Wheatfield, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Trevor Miodus [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Debbie Haynoski [email protected] 7866 Bishopville Rd Hornell, NY 14843 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kayla Sweet [email protected] 6723 Barnes Rd Stockton, NY 14784 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Penny Donaldson [email protected] 36 Folger St. Buffalo, NY 14220 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brandon Fath [email protected] 141 Nancycrest Lane West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Adrienne Martin [email protected] 20 Jonquille Court Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Julie Kania [email protected] 11 Winding Way Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Megan Murphy [email protected] 123 Willowgrove S Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Kiel [email protected] 11 Weathersfield Ln Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin Raeke [email protected] 3812 W 38th St Erie, PA 16506 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Welsch [email protected] 51 Daisy Lane Buffalo, NY 14228 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Doug Tanski [email protected] 625 Campbell Blvd Getzville, NY 14068 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Eric Hauser [email protected] 439 Reserve rd West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, John Kasinski [email protected] 10468 Clarence Center Road Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Barbara A. Dominiak [email protected] 56 Cove Creek Run West Seneca, NY 14224 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Benjamin Goben [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Amanda Mason [email protected] 10468 Clarence Center Road Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Cheryl McNatty [email protected] 210 Siebert Road Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kristina DellaPenna [email protected] 5449 Comstock rd Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Judith Ludwicki [email protected] 3 Stone Hedge Dr Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Donald Koch [email protected] 3633 Cumberland Ln Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, JACQUELINE RUSSELL [email protected] 6363 MAIN ST WILLIAMSVILLE NY, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Abram [email protected] 45 Kingston Lane Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, David Chmiel [email protected] 35 Hemlock Ln Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brad Linsey [email protected] 9600 Werhle Dr Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, James Klinger [email protected] 2538 Hills Creek road Wellsboro, PA 16901 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jeffery Kwiatkowski [email protected] 5205 Bank Street Clarence, NY 14031 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Joseph Luciano [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Eugene Dayton [email protected] 1450 Ellicott Creek Rd Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Annette Michaels [email protected] 107 Wrexham Court South Tonwanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Clayton Studi [email protected] 43 Windmill Rd West Seneca, NY 14218 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Betsy Thornton [email protected] 3213 Rachelle Drive North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Kevin House [email protected] 181 Wardman Road Kenmore, NY 14217 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Karen Stainsby [email protected] 159 Windmill Road Buffalo, NY 14218 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul Evans [email protected] 138 Maryknoll Dr Lackawanna, NY 14218 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Anthony Formato [email protected] 6146 Highgrove Park East Amherst, NY 14051 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Mark Thornton [email protected] 3213 Rachelle Drive North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brian Pekelnicky [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Daryl Kibler [email protected] 815 Olden Rd West Falls, NY 14170 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul Roy [email protected] 35 Edelweiss Court Glenwood, NY 14069 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brad Horey [email protected] 4530 Boncrest Dr W Buffalo, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Crater [email protected] 8009 bank st rd batavia, NY 14020 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, jason allen [email protected] 699 s huth rd cheektowaga, NY 14225 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul butski [email protected] 4520 candlewood dr Lockport, NY 14094 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard Sweitzer [email protected] 1326 95th Street Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jason Barclay [email protected] 3518 greenway rd Grand island, NY 14072 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Karen Murray [email protected] 167 Saint Clare Terr Tonawanda, NY 14150 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Adam Dusza [email protected] 144 Jeffrey Dr Amherst, NY 14228 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dale Halvarson [email protected] 135 Main St. Youngstown, NY 14174 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Nick Pieroni [email protected] 3393 Creek Rd Youngstown, NY 14174 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Michael,Grammatico | Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. As an overall comment I believe your plan to be totally too ambitious and unfeasible. I believe you will never be able to totally eliminate the use of fossil fuels, natural gas and gasoline. And if pushed to do so will cause many unrealized crises. It will be many years, if ever, that solar, wind, and renewable energy options will be able to supply the total amount of electric energy necessary for our society, both personal and especially commercial. Then there is the susceptibility of everything being electric. Storms, attacks, blackouts and the like make it a very unreliable source for total reliance. We need the assurance of multi-power sources. In my particular case it would present a particularly expensive dilemma. I have a cabin in a remote area where electric power would cost more than $50,000 to install. We have depended on propane for heat, cooking, refrigeration and hot water. We also depend on gasoline to run a generator. I would not be happy with no other option but electric grid energy. Again, New York State finds ways to make citizens unhappy enough to move to another state. | ||
| David,Stinner | US itek Incorporated | I am a home owner, and business owner of 3 businesses in Buffalo. I own 2 homes and 2 multi tenant Commerical buildings. I have installed weatherproofing, and efficient systems. I am have a geothermal heat pump installed in my main residence. I am proud to live in NYS and I want to see these initiative to eliminate natural gas heating, cooking, and hot water systems in the home and in commercial buildings. NYS needs to be a leader and the business opportunity for this change is huge. Please move forward with this awesome plan. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | Attached are my comments on Draft Scoping Plan Residential Heating Electrification Estimates. In my opinion, home electrificati on is a primary concern for New Yorkers given the importance of affordability and the impact to every household. Accordingly, I spent a lot of time trying to replicate the costs to retrofit existing furnaces with heat pumps as documented in these comments. I found that the existing documentation is too incomplete to be able to reproduce the cost projections. These comments found that a primary driver of home heating electrification is the building shell cost. Given its importance all the assumptions used to generate the numbers must be available but there is insufficient documentation. The Draft Scoping Plan claims only 26% of residences need deep shell upgrades. I estimate that more than half actually will need to have deep shell upgrades using a more refined climatology. I estimate that the entire building sector component cost is $230 billion relative to the reference case in the Draft Scoping Plan. I calculated that just the residential retrofit heat electrification costs range between $259 billion and $370 billion using one methodology and between $295 billion and $370 billion based primarily on the number of residences that need deep building shell upgrades. I conclude that all of the material described in the section “What needs to be provided” must be publicly available to fulfill the obligations of the Climate Act and ensure that cost information necessary to determine whether PSC mandates are met. The Integration Analysis documentation has to be supplanted and the Draft Scoping Plan needs to be revised to specifically address these obligations | has attachment |
| Elizabeth R. A.,Triano | I love NY and want to believe that we can lead in this area as in so many others historically. It's discouraging though that we closed Indian Point, and are generally enabling more natural gas development (there's a big plant being built not far from me), as well as marketing electric power as uncontestably "good" without considering where it's coming from. We must decarbonize, and move away from combustion as a model, but so much of what we're being offered seems like spin. And now many who heat with wood (and can't afford otherwise) are worried about that being taken away. Let's say even two more families in every 10 acquired electric cars. If they wanted to charge them at home, our grid isn't up to the load in many places. It's expensive to update infrastructure, and unfortunately usually approached in a manner more partisan than intelligent or appropriate. We need more than spin -- and unfortunately too many New Yorkers are unwilling or unable to face the complexities of the task at hand, and it's easier to malign than learn. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I just realized that there were supposed to be two attachments in the comment I submitted today. Could you please add the attached spreadsheet to the comment referenced in the receipt? If that does not work, what would you suggest that I do? Thanks, Roger Caiazza |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. February 15, 2022 Dear Climate Action Council Members, I’m writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the draft Scoping Plan released which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. After reviewing the plan, I disagree with the calls for the virtual elimination of natural gas from our homes, businesses, schools, industry/manufacturers, and other public facilities. Converting our energy systems to all electricity-based sources will require sizable renewable energy development at an unprecedented scale and massive power grid expansion. And that doesn’t include what will be needed for the individual conversion of countless homes and businesses across the state. Absent from the plan, is any meaningful consumer cost estimates for the required conversions and expansions I reference above. I didn’t see any assurances either that these costs – which experts estimate are $25,000 to $50,000 per Upstate New York household – won’t be passed along to New York’s residents. That works out to $10 to $25 billion in expenses for Western New York alone. This doesn’t factor in the rising energy costs from the supply and demand issues likely created by the Plan’s sole reliance on electricity. And, we Western New Yorkers can’t afford additional expenses. Buffalo is already the third poorest city in the nation with many of our residents stretched to capacity. Natural gas is simply more affordable, as electricity prices are approximately 3.5 higher. Speaking of supply… I question the power grid’s ability to cover increased demand for winter heating and electric vehicles, and I am clearly not alone. Recent reports published from the NYISO state the operator’s concerns about declining levels of reliability as early as 2023. I have also been reading that existing electric-based clean energy technologies can’t meet power demand much less maintain reliability, despite the recommended phasing out of natural gas. As a Western New Yorker, I noticed too that the Plan doesn’t recognize the significant differences between Upstate vs. Downstate New York. Upstate would be impacted far more negatively, due to its colder, harsher weather, older, larger housing stock and comparatively lower incomes – despite the fact that Downstate’s emission levels are significantly higher than those of Upstate. The worst part is, none of this is necessary. As a National Fuel employee, I’ve seen firsthand how our company leaders have worked to research, through a comprehensive study, numerous strategies and innovations to lower emissions and still provide reliable, affordable energy to residents. By adding dual-heat and blending low and no-carbon fuel alternatives like Renewable Natural Gas and Hydrogen, making system upgrades, and leveraging the underground – and weatherproof – distribution system we already have in place, our Guidehouse Study shows that this pathway will not only meet but actually exceed the 2019 Climate Act’s emission requirements. And we’re not alone in recognizing the importance of natural gas as an energy choice. An April 2021 report from Columbia University states, “… making use of the infrastructure already in place could offer a prime route for speeding up and cost-effectively making the considerable changes needed to fully decarbonize the energy sector.” As an energy industry employee, I know that it’s far too early to take any energy source off the table for consideration. An all-of-the-above approach can achieve our emissions reduction goals by utilizing all energy sources with underground, reliable natural gas infrastructure that includes low-carbon fuels when wind and solar are unavailable. Relying on one energy system for everything in New York from fueling our cars, heating our homes and businesses, and manufacturing our products is just too risky, particularly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Brandon Haspett |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Brenda Hill [email protected] 2064 Toad Hollow Trail Apex, NC 27502 Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Patricia ,Doyle | I support all Chapters of the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. Patricia Doyle | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Amy Shiley [email protected] 39 Wildwood Lane Orchard Park, NY 14127 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Brendan ,Lougheed | National Fuel Gas Co. | ||
| Caleb,Remillard | You have created a 341 page scoping plan that, from what I can see, really doesn't offer any technical specifications on how New York State will phase out the use of fossil fuels in the goal of decarbonizing the state economy. Admittedly, I skimmed the document, but still, how can people really comment on this document without any firm quantitative data or schedules for phase downs moving forward? I understand that this is a complex bill, but in terms of efficiency, less is often more. In, my opinion, if you don't make the laws clear enough for the masses to understand, you will receive lots of backlash from upset residents. The laws will be unenforceable at local jurisdictions, and false news will rapidly spread. I very much support the NYS Climate Action Plan, but please, please, keep is simple. Loopholes will make this bill a colossal failure if simplicity is defined as one of the most important requirements of the bill. | ||
| Matthew,Dubowski | National Fuel Gas | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paige Twinem [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Phil,Riehl | Oak Hill Bulk Foods, Inc. | This seems like just another plan to penalize upstate residents for downstate problems. In the rural areas of upstate NY we already enjoy clean water and clean air, so why implement a complicated regulated 'plan' to accomplish what we already enjoy? Government overreach is why we keep losing businesses and residents to other parts of the country. We need our businesses and people to stay in NY, or we all continue to lose. The push to convert everything to electric will not work in rural areas with already stressed electrical grid systems. We lose power occasionally, the most recent during very cold weather, so eliminating wood burning and natural gas would literally kill people. | |
| aaron,linder | Please, please, please put emphasis on the following topics in your final proposal!! Thank you! ? All-electric building codes for new construction (2024/2027). ? Zero-emissions standards for replacing fossil equipment/appliances at end of useful life (2030/2035). ? Align Public Service Law with Climate Law, initiate managed equitable transition off gas (Krueger/Fahey bill S8198 would provide the fix). ? No more fossil infrastructure expansion. ? Sufficient, dedicated funding to support an affordable transition for low- and moderate-income households ($1 billion/yr) ? Require a progressively-structured "feebate" on car purchases to encourage EV purchases and leases (new & used). ? Eliminate sales tax for new and used EVs. ? Enable direct sales of EVs. ? Move up proposed target for zero-emissions State passenger fleet to 2030. ? Accelerate State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build out. ? Fix utility rates to encourage EV uptake and off-peak charging. ? Develop a strategy to support expansion of non-MTA public transportation. ? Require State & IDA development funding to align with emissions reduction strategies (including mobility-oriented development). ? Set annual MW target for State permitting of renewables to reach 70x30 goal. ? Set MW targets to expand rooftop and parking lot solar & and siting on brownfields, and develop a plan to reach those targets. ? The priority focus should be on ramping up renewables and battery storage, as recommended, not "false solutions" (e.g., green hydrogen, RNG). ? Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. ? Launch statewide k-12 education & public information campaign around climate, renewable energy, and job training opportunities. ? ASAP: Process to set targets for reducing fossil fuel generation emissions needs to start now. | ||
| Gary,House | |||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, James A. Rizzo [email protected] 65 Hunters Glen Getzville, NY 14068 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Paul Chudzik [email protected] 1566 Schoellkopf Road Lake View, NY 14085 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Robin Yaple [email protected] 6363 Main street williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Dawn Miller [email protected] 10 East Ave. Middleport, NY 14105 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Karl,Curtis | individual/private citizen | As a general comment, you cannot address this issue without a serious discussion about the fact that the earths' human population vastly exceeds the earths' long-term carrying capacity. Some talk about the size of our human footprint on the environment. We also need to consider the number of feet. Yet our federal government rewards people who are poor candidates for parenthood for having more children than they can afford, i.e. earned income tax credits. Secondly, there is talk that laws will come about to prohibit the burning of wood for home heating. Suffice it to say, there will be major unrest/discontent amoung the peasants, if implemented. Carbon dioxide is emanating from cracks in the earth constantly, has been since day one. What if all the proposed measures to reduce CO2 are for naught because of this natural source? | |
| Mark,Pedersen | Converting to zero emissions in this cold-climate area cannot be accomplished simply by removing all the fossil fuel powered vehicles, electric generation plants, and heating. I have a heat pump, and it does not work well below 35 degrees F outside, and not at all below 20 degrees F outside. I have a gas fireplace that I have employed more than once when the electricity is out. If I want to drive to Ohio, I cannot rely on a zero emission vehicle to get me there in any reasonable time - even if the changing infrastructure is in place, charging a battery takes a lot more time than filling a gas tank. I object to the State dictating where the money goes - we have a free-market economy in this country - and only the free market can efficiently distribute services and goods. Central planning, as I witnessed when I visited in the Soviet Union in the mid-80s, clearly doesn't work! What makes the Legislature, or some bureaucratic agency in Albany think it can decide what is best for every part of this state? The plan should emphasize local decision making by local governments and people. This plan is a giant central government takeover of a vast and important swath of our economy and is not a good idea. | ||
| Monica,Smith | We can't keep electricity on in a thunder storm--really?? | ||
| Robert ,Fitzgerald | |||
| carollee,carey | i dont even have to read this report to say i wholeheartedly disagree with it. dont get me wrong i believe in using renewable energy. i have solar panels. however...our power grid is not at all reliable. and power companies have done little to improve that. the storm comes..the power lines blow down and everything comes to a screaching halt. they cant even keep up. someone tell me how in just 8 years they could be expected to take over the majority of the states heating/ cooling/ industrial power needs???? when the storms come, the natural gas still shows up at your home or business. if only there was a power pole still standing to provide electric to use that natural gas in your furnace... | ||
| RG,France | Nassau BOCES | According to the Aspen Institute's State Policy Landscape 2020 report, twenty-nine states and DC have state K-12 science standards that include teaching human-caused climate change. Unfortunately, New York is not on this list. Which it should be! Both our science and social studies standards touch upon indigenous knowledge systems, environmental literacy, and climate change. These standards are sprinkled here and there on the elementary level and more evident on the secondary level. The proposed plan must provide more emphasis on the important role public education will play in developing the next generation of climate/environmental change leaders. Its role in developing a Net Zero sustainable mindset in our children as well as influencing the change in their parents/guardians, who also play a critical role in nurturing this mindset in their children. Far too many times, federal, state, and local plans fail to see the critical role public education plays in developing the pipeline for the next generation of leaders to address the impending problems of the future. The proposed plan speaks to providing a curriculum and programs for the current workforce. Yes, this is essential! Yet, there needs to also be a focus on creating a K-12 explicit curriculum that takes into account the current science and social studies standards as well as fills in the gaps which are not present and align to the various initiatives proposed in this plan. If we truly believe children are our future! Let's ensure this plan gives them a stake in their future, an opportunity to strive and thrive in a sustainable and just world! Thank you for your time! | |
| kathryn ,guterman | Great Content pp.124 “• Fund low-emission zones and car-free streets….” I'd advocate for more seasonal roads and designating roads abandoned by towns for vehicular traffic being reassigned as pedestrian roads or commons. (including non motorized bikes, equine traffic, ect) GPS has altered historic or planned road use patterns particularly in rural areas. Passenger cars and trucks increasingly use toll free local and state routes alternatively to our thruways and freeways. GPS redirected road traffic negatively impacts the towns and hamlets along alternate toll free routes both economically and environmentally; including but not limited to diminishes air quality, reduced property values and puts undue burdens on small town and county highway departments. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jim Burt [email protected] 3891 Upper Mountain Road Sanborn, NY 14132 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Jackie,Gonzales | Historical Research Associates | Overreliance on switching to electric LDVs is a short-term solution that ignores how we have spent the past 70 years constructing and re-constructing our cities in a way that prioritizes cars over all other users. If we continue to update our infrastructure in ways that prioritize people in LDVs, we will never address the root causes of climate change and biodiversity loss. I realize that it can be difficult to quantify how prioritization of non-LDV users and denser re-development can lower GHG emissions. It is much easier to track how many electric cars were purchased or how many charging stations were installed. But difficulty of tracking should not mean avoidance of the more complex, system-wide, and paradigm-changing solutions. With that in mind, any transportation climate goals should: - Promote dense development to counteract the sprawl of the last 70 years and make it possible for any NYS resident (of any ability or income) to make trips by bike, foot, bus, scooter, wheelchair, etc., - Reallocate road space to non-automotive users, which serves the dual purpose of encouraging people to make non-LDV trips, while also providing opportunities to tear up asphalt and plant trees, bushes, and other plants, thereby reducing overall pavement to counter urban heat island effect and biodiversity loss, - Address ecosystem and biodiversity loss from existing pavement and find ways to de-incentivize future paving and encourage un-paving, - Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-LDV users at traffic light signals, - Support traffic calming measures like narrower roadways, bump-outs, curb extensions, trees along roadways, elevated crosswalks, etc, -Promote density: promote transit oriented development, eliminate single family zoning, reform tax system to encourage adaptive reuse of vacant sites, - Incentivize grocery stores in densely populated areas that are currently food deserts, enabling these regular trips by non-LDV. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Leslie [email protected] 210 south 10th street Olean, NY 14760 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Attached is a letter with my concerns to the new climate act that is being scoped. Please review and take into consideration. Thanks, Paul Chudzik |
has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Andrea Wick [email protected] 5346 Oakwood Drive N Tonawanda, NY 14120 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Richard Bittner [email protected] 207 Warner Rd Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Margaret Wagner [email protected] 15 Brodies Way Akron, NY 14001 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jodi J Smith [email protected] 31 Pear Tree Ln Lancaster, NY 14086 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Ishman [email protected] 4281 Sprague Ave Hamburg, NY 14075 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Janine Ward [email protected] 4048 Foxwood Lane Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Terry Kreuz [email protected] 185 North Long Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Carly Manino [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Samuel Jaworski [email protected] 2283 Seneca Buffalo, NY 14210 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Patrick Kelly [email protected] 63 Hirschfield Drive Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Matthew Wisotzky [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Ashley Butera [email protected] 6363 Main St Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| Cara-Leigh,Battaglia | BPCA-NYS Inc | The time is now. While all of these pieces of this comprehensive plan have an obvious Climate benefit to transition from fossil fuels to electrification. It is even more critical from a public health and safety need and a consumer cost need. New Yorkers deserve to have a safe, warm, healthy homes that they can afford to repair and maintain.Help us help people in every community in NYS esp the income challenged and elderly. We stand ready to support all of these initiatives in NY State. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Jessica Reagan [email protected] 6363 Main Street Williamsville, NY 14221 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Re: Concerns With Draft Scoping Plan Dear CAC, I'm writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the CAC's draft Scoping Plan, which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. This costly endeavor is concerning for several reasons, including; + The need for massive renewable energy development & power grid expansion + Unknown costs to consumers for conversion & expansion to renewable energy + Unspecified projections in rising consumer costs from supply & demand issues I have seen predictions from NYS consultants that the cost to consumers resulting from eliminating natural gas could be as high as $25 billion in Western New York alone. This is just a monetary cost that does not account for the price families would pay if the power grid were unable to support the demand increase necessary for winter heating and electric vehicles. As an energy industry employee, I believe relying on one energy system for everything is just too risky, mainly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Please reconsider the need for natural gas and its reliable delivery system as you determine the future of New York's energy footprint. Sincerely, Karen Merkel [email protected] 50 Mount Vernon Road Buffalo, NY 14226 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. The proposed legislation to ban the use of natural gas use in new (and replacement?) heating systems in residential buildings by substitution of air-to-air heat pumps (powered by electricity) should not approved until and unless that legislation’s net benefit in environmental impact and potential adverse impact on cost has been quantified and that data establishes a substantial reduction in the adverse environmental impact, at no greater cost than current natural gas fueled heating systems. Environmental Impact According tohttps://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/ New York State generates 9859 GW electricity annually from coal (0%), hydroelectric (23.4%), natural gas (48.4%), nuclear (21.4%), solar (2.9%), and wind (2.7%) Consequently, replacing all natural gas furnaces, boilers, etc. with air-to-air (A2A) heat pumps would not eliminate the adverse environmental impact of natural gas fueled home heating systems. Instead, the maximum possible reduction in adverse environmental impact of natural gas as a heating fuel source would be 51.6% (100%-48.4%) of the current level, if the efficiencies of fuel-to-heat-conversion of natural furnaces and A2A heat pumps were identical (they’re not). According tohttps://www.lng2019.com/how-much-electricity-does-natural-gas-produce/ 7 cubic feet (7.2 therms) of natural gas is required to generate 1 kWh of electricity. According towww.eia.gov 15 therms of natural gas are required to output 1M BTUs using a natural gas furnace and 121 kWh of electricity are required to produce that same 1M BTUs output from an A2A heat pump. In other words, it takes approximately 15 times more natural gas to produce the same amount of heat using an A2A heat pump, compared to using a natural gas furnace. Because 48.4% of electricity in New York is generated using natural gas, replacing natural gas furnaces with A2A heat pumps would increase natural gas use affecting an adverse environmental impact form residential heating by 7.2 (0.48 x 15) times more natural gas fueled furnaces replaced by A2A heat pumps. According towww.lng2019.com natural gas fired electric generation results in 52.91 kilograms of CO2per ton of natural gas used as fuel. Correspondingly, the current adverse environmental impact of natural gas fueled power generation will increase by 52.91 kilograms per ton of the natural gas used to power the A2A heat pumps that replaced natural gas furnaces. That outcome is contrary to the proposed legislation’s goal of reducing adverse environmental impact of energy used to heat residential homes in New York. Power Generation and Distribution The transition from natural gas to electricity as the preferred “fuel source” for residential and/or commercial heating will create a significant increase in the need in electrical power generation equipment and distribution. Does New York have the facilities, equipment, land, etc. to satisfy that demand? If not, what is the plan to extend and improve electrical grid capacity and reliability to support the increased demand resulting from the proposed legislation? What are the capital equipment, construction, maintenance, et al. costs of meeting that increased demand? What is the environmental impact of meeting that demand? Cost According towww.eia.gov the cost to output 1M BTUs using currently available fuels differs, greatly (see attached). In particular, the cost to generate 1M BTUs using an A2A heat pump is approximately 167% that of natural gas. That means that that New Yorkers that currently heat their homes using natural gas will pay 67 percent more to heat their homes using A2A heat pumps, after paying substantially higher costs to purchase and install an A2A heat pump. That non-recoverable equipment and installation cost will be even greater if current government incentives/subsidies are reduced or eliminated. New Yorkers support the goal to reduce manmade climate change. The proposed legislation should not become law until and unless it can be proven that its implementation will affect a net reduction in the adverse impact on the environment, without increasing cost. As this analysis details, there is a lot of work to be done to achieve those goals. Bill Burdick Niskayuna NY 518 346-7329 [email protected] |
||
| Paul,Evans | I’m writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the draft Scoping Plan released which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. After skimming the plan, I must disagree with the calls for the virtual elimination of natural gas from our homes, businesses, schools, industry/manufacturers, and other public facilities. Without question this will be an extremely costly endeavor that will entail tremendous resources. Converting our energy systems to all electricity-based sources will require sizable renewable energy development at an unprecedented scale and massive power grid expansion. And that doesn’t include what will be needed for the individual conversion of countless homes and businesses across the state. Also what about the cost to the consumer? I use natural gas for heating and cooking. I do not want to change to electric and cannot afford the estimated $25,000 to $50,000 to do so. Plus, looking at all the issues that Europe is currently experiencing I question the power grid’s ability to cover increased demand for winter heating and electric vehicles. Please consider natural gas as an integral part of emissions reductions! All electric is not the way to go! | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear Climate Action Council Members, I’m writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the draft Scoping Plan released which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. After skimming the plan, I must disagree with the calls for the virtual elimination of natural gas from our homes, businesses, schools, industry/manufacturers, and other public facilities. Without question this will be an extremely costly endeavor that will entail tremendous resources. Converting our energy systems to all electricity?based sources will require sizable renewable energy development at an unprecedented scale and massive power grid expansion. And that doesn’t include what will be needed for the individual conversion of countless homes and businesses across the state. Surprising too, the plan doesn’t contain any meaningful consumer cost estimates for the required conversions and expansions I reference above. I didn’t see any assurances either that these costs – which experts estimate are $25,000 to $50,000 per Upstate New York household – won’t be passed along to New York’s residents. That works out to $10 to $25 billion in expenses for Western New York alone. This doesn’t factor in the rising energy costs from the supply and demand issues likely created by the Plan’s sole reliance on electricity. And, we Western New Yorkers can’t afford additional expenses. Buffalo is already the third poorest city in the nation with many of our residents stretched to capacity. Natural gas is simply more affordable, as electricity prices are approximately 3.5 higher. I question the power grid’s ability to cover increased demand for winter heating and electric vehicles. Recent reports published from the NYISO state the operator’s concerns about declining levels of reliability as early as 2023. I have also been reading that existing electric?based clean energy technologies can’t meet power demand much less maintain reliability, despite the recommended phasing out of natural gas. As a Western New Yorker, I noticed too that the Plan doesn’t recognize the significant differences between Upstate vs. Downstate New York. Upstate would be impacted far more negatively, due to its colder, harsher weather, older, larger housing stock and comparatively lower incomes – despite the fact that Downstate’s emission levels are significantly higher than those of Upstate. The worst part is, none of this is necessary. As a National Fuel employee, I’ve seen firsthand how our company leaders have worked to research, through a comprehensive study, numerous strategies and innovations to lower emissions and still provide reliable, affordable energy to residents. By adding dual?heat and blending low and no?carbon fuel alternatives like Renewable Natural Gas and Hydrogen, making system upgrades, and leveraging the underground – and weatherproof – distribution system we already have in place, our Guidehouse Study shows that this pathway will not only meet but actually exceed the 2019 Climate Act’s emission requirements. And we’re not alone in recognizing the importance of natural gas as an energy choice. An April 2021 report from Columbia University states, “… making use of the infrastructure already in place could offer a prime route for speeding up and cost?effectively making the considerable changes needed to fully decarbonize the energy sector.” As an energy industry employee, I know that it’s far too early to take any energy source off the table for consideration. An all?of?the?above approach can achieve our emissions reduction goals by utilizing all energy sources with underground, reliable natural gas infrastructure that includes low?carbon fuels when wind and solar are unavailable. Relying on one energy system for everything in New York from fueling our cars, heating our homes and businesses, and manufacturing our products is just too risky, particularly as we see an increasing need for energy system reliability, resilience, and quicker recovery from more frequent and significant weather events. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Kristina Leibring Accounts Payable Coordinator E:[email protected] 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, NY 14221 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear members, I’m writing to express my concern about some of the recommendations contained in the draft Scoping Plan which essentially proposes to eliminate natural gas as an energy option in our state. After skimming the plan, I must disagree with the calls for the virtual elimination of natural gas from our homes, businesses, schools, industry/manufacturers, and other public facilities. Without question this will be an extremely costly endeavor that will entail tremendous resources. Converting our energy systems to all electricity-based sources will require sizable renewable energy development at an unprecedented scale and massive power grid expansion. And that doesn’t include what will be needed for the individual conversion of countless homes and businesses across the state. Furthermore, what about the cost to the consumer? I use natural gas for heating and cooking. I do not want to change to electric and cannot afford the estimated $25,000 to $50,000 to do so. As a Western New Yorker, I noticed too that the Plan doesn’t recognize the significant differences between Upstate vs. Downstate New York. Plus, looking at all the issues that Europe is currently experiencing I question the power grid’s ability to cover increased demand for winter heating and electric vehicles. The worst part is, none of this is necessary. As a National Fuel employee, I’ve seen firsthand how our company leaders have worked to research, through a comprehensive study, numerous strategies and innovations to lower emissions and still provide reliable, affordable energy to residents. By adding dual-heat and blending low and no-carbon fuel alternatives like Renewable Natural Gas and Hydrogen, making system upgrades, and leveraging the underground – and weatherproof – distribution system we already have in place, our Guidehouse Study shows that this pathway will not only meet but actually exceed the 2019 Climate Act’s emission requirements. Finally, as an energy industry employee, I know that it’s far too early to take any energy source off the table for consideration. An all-of-the-above approach can achieve our emissions reduction goals by utilizing all energy sources with underground, reliable natural gas infrastructure that includes low-carbon fuels when wind and solar are unavailable. Please consider natural gas as an integral part of emissions reductions! All electric is not the way to go! Sincerely, Paul Evans |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. To whom it may concern, Attached please find my public comment letter pertaining to the CAC’s Draft Scouting Plan, describing NYS plan to reach ambitious goals set out in the CLCPA. Thank you for your time. Eric J. Hauser Operations Supervisor National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation MSW 3 Meter shop M – (716)870-8551 |
has attachment | |
| Jeanie,Gleisner | Central New York Regional Planning & Development Board | ||
| Marleah,Close | As a resident of New York State, I have deep concerns regarding the Climate Act's Draft Scoping Plan and its provisions. It is right that we move toward climate goals sensibly to ensure energy reliability so that we can withstand climate-induced strains on the power grid and avoid situations as demonstrated by recent events that strained power grids elsewhere such as last year's crisis in Texas. I am in agreement with others who've said a rushed requirement to electrify our homes could cause energy reliability concerns, resulting from additional significant strains on the electric power grid. Especially concerning is that Western New York is 56% colder than downstate and home heating needs are significant. | ||
| Craig,Vollmer | The New York Forest Owners Association | The CLCPA is a monumental piece of legislation and the scoping plan is a complex lengthy document addressing a complex issue that will have a profound impact on the residents of New York. Many of NY's residents had no knowledge that this legislation was passed in 2019 let alone the recent release of the Draft Scoping Plan. Word is likely to spread slowly and by the time people learn about it, it may limit their ability to review it and comment in a meaningful way. I would ask that you consider extending the public comment period to at least the end of June - 6 months. For such important legislation, I think it only fair that the residents have more time to understand it. Thanks for considering this request. | |
| Diane,Winicki | National Fuel Gas | While strongly supporting the goal of the plan, there are too many changes being proposed that will affect the average taxpayer, home owner and various business entities. If no new buildings can be built with natural gas as an energy source, then many, many just will not be built, including residential & commercial. They will be built elsewhere in a different state. Forcing residential customers to switch systems & appliances will undoubtedly cause a financial hardship. Electricity prices have been going up across the country. Climate action does need to be taken, but ensuring reliability, affordability and success is not going to be achieved unless the plan includes natural gas into its long term plans. | |
| Mary ,blakelt | Restrictions regarding the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces are stupid. So many people depend on wood to supplement their heat source during the colder months. To take that away will certainly mean more people applying for HEAP, or for those who don't qualify, cold homes. Has any thought been given to how our Amish neighbors will survive without wood to fuel their stoves and water heaters? Perhaps instead of restricting wood burning, more consideration should be given to making better exhaust systems for wood stoves and fireplaces. | ||
| Tony,Daniels | Cycle Architecture, PLLC | I’m an architect with over 30 years of experience working in New York. My career has been dedicated to designing the resilient, zero-energy buildings that are needed to face the challenges of our time. Recently, I have started a company to provide deep energy retrofits for buildings, and this company has been qualified by NYSERDA as a solution provider to implement and execute deep energy retrofits at scale. I offer this feedback with the hope that the ambitious goals of the Draft Scoping Plan can be met through coordinated and inclusive actions that will allow building owners of all types to implement deep energy retrofits. The cost of retrofitting buildings is the primary barrier to their widespread adaptation. If deep energy retrofits are to be ubiquitous in the coming years, the cost of executing these retrofits will need to be radically brought down. There are innovations in materials and equipment that will help to bring down costs, such as panelization of exterior cladding and the development of unitized heat pumps. However, without far-reaching changes to the business of retrofitting, the cost to execute retrofits will remain painfully high. Contracting is a really important feature of how the work of meeting these ambitious goals will get done. Every time someone agrees to retrofit their building, they will sign a contract with a company to execute the work. If we expect to continue using the current model for contracting, costs will not be driven down, and entrenched incumbents with the legal and insurance resources will drive out innovative companies and start-ups. It is said that "insanity is doing things the same way but expecting different results." If we want to really see cost reduction for retrofits, we need to see changes in regulations that apply to design and construction services, and possibly a way to address insurance costs. I will submit examples separately, as comments are constrained to a maximum of 2000 characters. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good morning, I wanted to follow up on my previous email above. If you could provide me with the official deadline for the New York Draft Scoping Plan Comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for you time, and I look forward to hearing from you, Sydney On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:53 PM Sydney Stephens <[email protected]> wrote: Good afternoon, I am interested in submitting comments for the New York Draft Scoping Plan, but I am wondering if you can kindly provide me with the official deadline for submission? Currently, it is only communicated that comments are accepted through April 2022, but if you could provide me with an official date, that would be very helpful. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you, -- Sydney Stephens (She/Her) Sales Analyst • AMPLY Power (408) 497.0392 / [email protected] 335 E. Middlefield Rd., Mountain View, CA 94043 amplypower.com | LinkedIn | Twitter bp acquires AMPLY Power to accelerate fleet electrification |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am submitting my comments on the Draft CLCPA scoping plan specifically on the Appendix B Feedback, pg. 19 (B-10) "Phase Out Natural Gas." I am a widow and live alone. I have owned a gas well for many years and depend on it for home use. My well is not hooked into a pipeline but only to my residence. The NYS DEC Annual Well Report is always filed and I maintain an insurance bond on the well. Now the DEC has implemented burdensome and costly reporting requirements to the Annual Well Report with possible additional major leak reporting costs and very confusing reporting requirements. I have been a NYS resident and taxpayer all my life and am concerned about the environment; however, private residential use should not be penalized or taken away. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Vicki Hitchcock, 3241 Pine Hill Road, Randolph, NY, 14772 716-358-4106 |
||
| James,Durkish | Last week it was -25F outside. We live on the west side of Grassy Hill. So in the winter, we get only indirect sun light. We heat mostly with wood from our forest. We have oil for a back up heating system. We use LP for a back up Generac Generator for electricity- We lost power at least (3) three times already this year. How am I going to survive, If I'm on electricity only with a power failure at those temps and lower???????? My pipes will freeze and cost me $$$$$. It looks like you "will allow me" to burn wood & fossil fuels to be self-sufficient until I need to replace my EPA approved outside boiler. Then, I must get rid of my wood burning boiler and go to electricity that has already increased about 40% this year. Nice............. So you want me to spend more money on energy than I currently do. Hitting me in my pocket book. Nice............... What are you going to do with all the wood burning stoves in the thousands of camps in the Adirondacks? I don't agree with this plan and if this goes through it only hastens our plans to move out of New York State. This is getting ridiculous. Respectfully, jimmy "D" | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Sir or Madam Climate Action Council, Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. Sincerely, Alex Schettine 1524 West Avenue, #33 Richmond, VA 23220 (504) 913-0908 |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. This appears to be a feel good at the moment bill with no thoughts of collateral damage in the near future. The cost, the mental and physical damage and feeling safe in our own home is not taken into consideration. |
||
| Danielle ,Spiegel-Feld | Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy & Land Use Law | ||
| Catelyn,Sturm | This is the WORST idea you can do for NYS. First of all, you would be destroying thousands if not millions of jobs, increase costs to consumers astronomically etc. | ||
| Christopher,Denton | Denton Law Office | I notice that there is no Chapter titled for adverse environmental impacts. No chapter on the cumulative Adverse Environmental impacts. Yet this entire program is about the Environment. Does no one see the irony of those omissions? All of this Scoping etc is a distraction. Why is New York promoting a program that does not require that the energy produced in New York State from Wind and Solar be used in New York State? New York State does not require that the solar and wind energy production be used by New Yorkers. In fact a not insubstantial part of such production is sold to Massachusetts who then gets to claim that they are green, while they buy their natural gas from overseas ships, which is because Massachusetts and New York have blocked pipeline development for American natural gas. Massachusetts has bought its gas from Russians, delivered in great large Russian ships. Why are we subsidizing Russia and Massachusetts? This is not about New York' State's environment, it is about pie in the sky global warming virtue signalling. This has the odor of money to it. Money FROM the rate payers and tax payers TO the investors. And if the investors are from out of state, the money leaves the state. Not to mention the lunacy of erecting 700 foot high Wind Turbines in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Erie may be about 60 feet deep. If one of these monster Turbines falls over, hundreds of feet of it will still be above the surface. What about the international shipping in these Lakes? And de-icing in the winter and the toxic lubricants that will spill into these fresh water lakes, which are used for drinking water and fisheries. Where are the so-called environmentalists? What of paving productive farm land with a 3000 acre industrial solar facility and clear cutting mountain tops for 700 foot wind turbines? Why is not the same regulatory rigor applied to WIND and SOLAR as was applied to oil and gas development? And why only 2000 characters for comments? | |
| Jacqueline,Crawley | Dear New York Climate Action Council, Congratulations on your outstanding Climate Action Scoping Plan, packed with insightful understanding of the issues and creative ideas for solutions. Particularly impressive are the stated measures to reduce carbon emissions described in Table 10's initiatives, solar panels on rooftops and parking lots mentioned on page 161 (which are widespread in California), the co-product market for food wastes proposed on page 213, and attention to ensuring a just transition throughout your impressive 331 page document. Missing entirely, however, are clear descriptions about implementation and enforcement. The success of the Plan will depend entirely on built-in mechanisms for realizing its excellent goals. As I'm sure you know, implementation will take a huge amount of political will, major funding streams, extensive education for leaders of the relevant businesses, and persuasive ad campaigns for the public. Similarly, enforcement will require considerable investment in oversight teams. As examples, page 239 describes recycling and the landmark plastic bag reduction act. Yet many restaurants continue to place take-out orders in plastic bags. Only a small portion of eligible items placed into recycling bins actually get recycled. Electric charging stations installed on Manhattan streets are brilliant but ineffective because non-electric cars park in the designated spaces. No oversight + no penalty = useless policies. Please add paragraphs about spot-checking mechanisms that will ensure compliance. In addition, descriptions of methods for education, training, and advertising, to convince the citizens of our state of the beauty of your vision, are needed. Transparent progress reports must be provided to the public annually. We all want to understand how well the legislated policies are translating into substantive results. Thanks for your tremendous work. I'm with you all the way! With very best wishes, Jacki Crawley | ||
| Robert,Titus | This plan to eliminate all carbon emissions is ridiculous and completely unrealistic. This will ultimately hurt New Yorkers, most notably those less fortunate, and drive more people and businesses out of the state. The reliance on renewable energy considering the climate range in New York can be dangerous. The BTUs required for many residents simply cannot be supplied only by renewables. As such, millions of dollars will need to be spent on wind turbines and solar panels, resulting in increased taxes and electricity rates, which are already astronomical in NY. Additionally, consider the rare earth metals needed to manufacture the parts for solar panels and wind turbines, they all come from overseas mines that are gathered in a way not healthy for the environment and shipped a large distance. The “green” energy source is actually not that green when considering the full life of the products. Lastly, why is Nuclear energy not considered? That is the best form of green energy to achieve this lofty goal. | ||
| Greg,Kruppa | This is probably the most ridiculous plan anyone has ever come up with. We would have to expand our electrical grid to 4x what it is now. The current grid can’t even keep up with the AC load in the summer imagine the winter heating load? We have a safe, reliable and AFFORDABLE gas system now. Our heating costs will more than triple with your plan. That will cripple this region. Let’s be smart here. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | This comment addresses two issues with the Draft Scoping Plan Social Cost of Carbon Benefit calculations. I explain that the meth odology is flawed and that I cannot reproduce the values in the Scoping Plan. This is important because the only way that the Scoping Plan can claim that the “cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $90 billion” is by using a defective approach. | has attachment | |
| SEAN ,OBRIEN | I do not support the ban on new natural gas service to existing and newly built buildings. I do think lower emissions is a good idea. I live in Western New York and we have cold weather sometimes 9 months out of the year. I would be concerned about the resiliency of the power grid during peak heating times during the winter. Our electric goes out a few times a year but our natural gas service has not had a single service outage even in the coldest of winter days. We heat our home with natural gas. I am concerned about the cost to New Yorkers. The price of natural gas is lower cost for heating compared to electric heat. The cost to transition to all electric appliances will costs several thousands of dollars. We have a natural gas furnace, hot water tank and clothes dryer. In terms of industry many businesses rely on low cost natural gas to fuel their operations in New York. I think a ban on new natural gas hookups will scare away future business investment in our state. People and businesses are leaving our state at record levels. We don't need to give them another reason to leave. | ||
| Talia,Cohen | To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for all you're doing for NYC. I am writing to urgently implore you to vote for the full $15 billion funding package for the The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The existential challenge before us requires immediate and urgent action. That action requires significant financial investment. New York City is a leader on the global stage. You taking a stand on this can truly have lifesaving, world-salvaging consequences. On a personal note, I want to live in a city where I don't need to worry about the air my family breathes, the water they drink. I want to live in a city where my family's home isn't flooded during hurricane season. I hope to have children someday, and I would like to raise them here, in the city I love and call home. Please consider the future generations of New Yorkers, and the world, whose lives and wellbeing this act effects. Sincerely, Tali | ||
| Nina,Kretzmer Seed | To the CAC, I read with excitement of the opening of the public comment period on the CAC Draft Scoping Plan. I write to send my support and my fervent wish that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act be fully funded for the full $15 million sought. I have a three year old daughter and want her to inherit an earth that is healthy and a society that knows how to keep the earth healthy. New York can and should pave the way for the country in pursuing climate goals to leave this earth in great shape for future generations. We cannot delay further. In solidarity, Nina Kretzmer Seed | ||
| Miri,Miller | Please fund this bill to the full 15 billion dollars! I want the earth to exist for my children and my children's children. | ||
| Alex,Dillon | I recently moved to New York from California and saw first hand the devastating effects of climate change when I couldn't go outside for almost a month in 2020 due to wildfire smoke. Now in New York I have had leaks through my ceiling due to hurricane type rain. Funding the New York State Climate Act for the full $15 billion is really important and I fully support it. | ||
| Michael,Weidner | I agree we should lower emissions, expand energy efficiency, provide for a dual heat pathway, use natural gas (including renewable gas) and hydrogen (if possible), use the existing natural gas distribution/pipeline system (which has proven to be the most reliable energy transportation system), and take steps to improve the reliability of the electric grid. However, any solution that removes reliable natural gas from the energy plan (such as gas appliance bans and the decommissioning of natural gas system), will create damaging headwinds from an economic standpoint, drive residents from the state, and create safety issues as too much reliance would be placed on a fragile grid in a cold climate. | ||
| [email protected] |
Dear Climate Action
Committee: I could not get the shorter 2000 character version or the attachment to forward, so I am sending this via e-mail. Comments apply to Agriculture and Forestry, Land Use, Just Transitions and Local Government. Please acknowledge receipt. George Profous Senior Forester NYSDEC-New Paltz 845-256-3082 [email protected] |
has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. You state all comments will be made public. Does that include commenter's name, email, address? Bob Stevens NY |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Hi, I'm 24 years old and I am deeply concerned about the climate crisis. We did a great job passing this bill and we need to fund it the full 15 billion dollars!!!! This is personal, not only to me but to my whole generation. I've seen the effects of climate change already beginning to take hold, and will never forget when an unexpected tornado destroyed my neighborhood this year. I know that these forms of devastation will only continue if we don't take urgent and immediate action. I ask that you PLEASE vote for the full 15 billion dollars for The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. -- (she/they) Email: [email protected] Phone: 215-206-1322 |
||
| Benjamin,Larsen | I am writing to oppose the goals set forth in the draft scoping plan for these reasons: 1. New Yorker's need cheap, reliable energy. Those factors are paramount and they cannot be achieved with solar and wind. 2. The amount of land required to generate power with solar and wind is 300-400 times the land required to generate power with natural gas. Increasing the solar and wind portion of our grid to 70% would require clearing and impacting huge amounts of land. This is counter to many environmental goals including the stated goal of carbon sequestration outlined in the scoping plan. 3. The goals outlined in the plan are not possible given current technologies and infrastructure. Solar panels and wind turbines are composite technologies that require mining of many types of elements. To scale up the mining required to achieve a 70% renewable grid component would cause massive environmental degradation all around the world. The same holds true for battery technology, which requires huge inputs of materials from all around the world. The manufacturing realities of renewable and storage technology is such that a major carbon deficit is incurred before any gain is realized. 4. Nuclear energy is not mentioned in the scoping plan overview. This omission indicates a policy decision from the scoping plan authors and is not an oversight. Nuclear is the only scalable, reliable technology that can power a modern economy without carbon emissions. One soda can sized amount of uranium can power an entire, modern, high-energy life. This is true energy density. I will oppose any plan that omits from the discussion nuclear energy from the outset. To do so reveals either ignorance, strident idealism or both. 5. Any gains achieved by implementing the goals outlined in the plan will be overwhelmed by the development of emerging economies as they build their energy infrastructure with cheap, reliable technology that helps to bring their populations out of poverty. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Why are you destroying a resource that we need to live. This is our drinking water. This is the livelihood of many individuals thru commercial fishing, recreation and numerous other things. It will not generate enough power to keep us warm because the power will go to NYC. Our lives will be ruined . Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| Johnathan,Licitra | I support the plan to de-carbonize the energy and transportation sector. Upgrades in the NY electric grid also need to be supported ASAP. We do not want brown-outs like in CA. Green infrastructure supports existing and sustainable jobs. Thank you | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Panel Members and Working Groups, I am happy to see NYS drafting this plan for meeting greenhouse gas emissions over the next decades. I am hopeful that not only other states but the US and the rest of the world takes this on more seriously as well. There are several aspects of the plan that I would like to express my thoughts on as a senior citizen, Chemical Engineer by training, and having worked in a number of energy related industries over my close to 50 years in the workforce. I will use the Integration Analysis Findings bullets to guide my response: Achieving deep decarbonization is feasible by mid-century. Agreed to a point but totally agree that it requires action in all sectors. Further discussion later. Energy efficiency and end-use electrification are essential. Let's be careful here.Heat pumps work well at moderate temperatures but require supplemental heat (either electric or gas) when air temperatures drop below 25F (subject to improvements, but my own heat pump is limited and struggles once temperatures are below 30F or so). If the supplemental heat is electric, there will be a real surge in demand during extreme cold conditions that may challenge not only what the grid can supply but also what the electrical conductors can manage to deliver to all the homes in the affected region. I am concerned that pushing too much current through the existing conductors will increase the amount of transmission losses that in the end requires even more additional energy to be produced. There is a limited amount of copper plus installing more or larger lines needs to be considered. Electric Vehicles also have some limitations (currently) including additional mileage limits during hot and cold weather due to the need to run the AC or heater.Hybrid vehicles would seem a much more reliable replacement. Another recent event has indicated another issue in that when cars are stranded on highways due to weather events (I95 corridor), once the battery dies, how do we get all them charged and off the road? One more issue with electric vehicles is that if everyone plugs theirs in when they get home from work there would be a large surge in demand so a similar scenario to electrifying homes during extreme cold.New York will need to substantially reduce VMT while increasing access to public transportation. Agreed. Requires a change in how the public responds but we need to find a way to make this available and attractive. Consumer and community decision-making is key, and especially important for the purchase of new passenger vehicles and heating systems for homes and businesses through the next decade. Careful here too, similar to the earlier bullet but agree with this approach as long as all aspects of the electrification process are considered. A transition to low-GWP refrigerants and enhanced refrigerant management will be required. Leak control to reduce losses in existing and future systems would seem as important. Be careful before we dive into replacement refrigerants to be sure there aren't unintended consequences from the manufacture and use of these. Low-carbon fuels such as bioenergy or green hydrogen have a role. Istrongly support development in this area. Sectors that are challenging to electrify. Include ocean transportation. Electricity system reliability beyond 2040. This is a great goal but, as I'm sure everyone in this group is aware, there is a lot to be done. I am aproponent of Nuclear as part of the reliability plan and would like to see the addition of some Nuclear power plants in NYS in the next decade (would require plans in place very soon due to the time it takes to execute). We are fortunate enough to have a huge hydro-power plant at Niagara Falls which provides reliability but it is limited and I am not in favor of damning rivers to generate more hydro-power at this point. I do favor wind turbines but there are storage issues due to reliability and have mixed feelings on solar (I would like to see these panels on roofs and not put in places where farming or nature deserves the space) which has some of the same issues. Solar panels require metal powders which are not made from a 'clean' process and I'm sure we yet understand how much maintenance these panels will require. Wind turbines are much better understood so I would expand more there especially the off-shore concept. Necessary methane emissions mitigation in waste and agriculture will require transformative solutions. Absolutely! Methane emissions must be reduced and there are methods for the most part. There are a number of areas that can help including the type of feed farmers use (mainly for dairy) as well as enclosure and capture of methane and methods of digesting animal and industrial waste in closed systems to capture both CH4 and CO2. Venting from industrial sources should never be allowed; at worst this gas should be flared to at least reduce it to CO2 which is much less impactful. Large-scale carbon sequestration opportunities include lands and forests and negative emissions technologies. Agree with specific comments below. Negative emissions technologies (such as the direct air capture of CO2). Although I'm really not in favor of this long term it may be required to reduce CO2 until emissions have been adequately reduced. I feel this is only a band-aid and we'll pay for it again later but sometimes you have to use a band-aid until the bleeding stops. Strategic land-use planningagriculture activities, Agree, we need to work with farmers to move away from some traditional methods.new renewables development, Agree, there are things being developed and especially areas that don't totally rely on electricity. We need a diverse tool box to solve this. and smart urban planning (smart growth). I'm probably in the minority that we may need to impose population density limits at some point as well as limit growth into rural areas to protect out wildlife as well as provide reforestation expansion. We need to hold local planning boards to standards that are consistent with carbon reduction goals. At the same time, we need to plan for more extreme weather and this starts with these local planners as well.Research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) is key. Agree but we need to understand that today's path can't assume R&D will find the solution we're looking for. We need to plan for current trends and manage with the tools we have. At the same time, we need to have a plan flexible enough to allow for innovation that can change the path we're on to an even better outcome.Overall, I am encouraged by the fact that we are looking at ways to tackle this critical issue. Unfortunately, our actions alone aren't enough but hopefully they will be an example to others for what we can do. We do need to include actions needed to deal with what's coming regarding extreme weather since the path we're on won't change for a while even if we get to net zero tomorrow. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. Kind Regards, Greg Goodridge Honeoye, NY 585.356.3497 |
||
| William,Gehm | LR Gehm LLC | You will find that for every cow a dairy herd is milking there is one to the side ready to replace her. On the typical modern dairy farm about half the milking herd will get replaced annually with around 5% to 10% of the herd exiting dead. Replacement rates on dairies have been rising from around 22% to the current level of nearly 50% since the 1960’s when the industry started focusing on mastitis. That effort basically “solved” the problem with slaughter as evidenced by the replacement rates. I did an estimate on water waste alone due to these replacement rates and determined that in California alone that about 400,000 acre feet are wasted annually which is approximately 2.5 billion gallons. New York State is about 40% of that amount. For the entire US it is around 15 trillion gallons – doesn’t take long to see how this quickly adds up to serious water waste. This situation can be addressed and has in fact been addressed on numerous dairy farms in the US and Canada. The fundamental solution is a milking system that will quickly and efficiently milk a cow such that milk quality is improved and more significantly damage is not done to the udder as a result of a slow and inefficient milking process. Data for this product which won an ASABE innovation in ag award early this year is available at www.TridentPulsation.com. Dairies using this product for more than a year can speak directly to the fact that replacement rates can in fact be driven back down into the 20% range. Regardless of your position or way forward it should be obvious that success will not be had for an industry that slaughters 50% of the milking herd on an annual basis while wasting fresh water better suited for other purposes. You can start by reviewing detailed herd data for larger dairies in NYS and those on university farms. A further review of USDA NASS data will also provide confirmation as will a review of various studies published in the Journal of Dairy Science. Bill Gehm 607-849-3779. | |
| Richard,Kelly | As someone who has used Wood Pellets as a primary heating source for 30 years, my wife and I are vehemently opposed to any regulation restricting our ability to heat our house. My wife and I live in the Catskills area and some winters are brutally cold. Even though we have access to Natural Gas in our house, the cost of switching to that as a primary heating source is in jeopardy because of pipelines being shut down or remain unbuilt!!! Exactly WHAT the heck are we supposed to heat with?? | ||
| Jerry,Michael | Individual | If the Council were to honestly apply science and do the math, it would conclude that the objectives cannot be met without additional, but unspecified energy sources. We do not need to risk depending on new technological breakthroughs to meet these objectives. All we need to do is have the courage to undertake a comprehensive public education program to overcome unjustified concerns about nuclear electricity generation. Based on the success of new generation nuclear plants in France, the rest of the EU is moving in this direction. If we do not, we will be depending on natural gas for electricity generation for decades longer than you are planning. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good afternoon, I am interested in submitting comments for the New York Draft Scoping Plan, but I am wondering if you can kindly provide me with the official deadline for submission? Currently, it is only communicated that comments are accepted through April 2022, but if you could provide me with an official date, that would be very helpful. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you, -- Sydney Stephens (She/Her) Sales Analyst • AMPLY Power (408) 497.0392 / [email protected] 335 E. Middlefield Rd., Mountain View, CA 94043 amplypower.com | LinkedIn | Twitter bp acquires AMPLY Power to accelerate fleet electrification |
||
| Dale,Halvarson | Living in Western New York we typically turn our heat on during October and use it through the majority if not all of April and possibly more, we use gas to heat our home for at least half the year. Up until this year due to the abundance of gas supply the price of gas was very affordable making our heating bill the most affordable of all our utilities. Now, due to the recent political climate our gas bill has increased significantly due to no part of our usage which has not changed a bit. Rather than making energy use decisions based on political re-election plans, let utilize science and technology to guide us towards achieving both our net zero energy goal and also continue to make natural gas one of if not the most plentiful and affordable energy to use. | ||
| john,rauen | Wendel | Converting all of the existing appliance from Gas to electric is a bad idea. This has not been properly brought to the engineering community to come up with a plan to deal with converting all gas usage to electrical Gas is a more efficient souce of heating and cooking and has great BTU/therm than electric. Gas emissions account for a very small percentage of pollutants in the air compared to other fossil fuels such as coal that other nations use. We should continue to allow the use of gas into the future especially with the extremely efficient and clean burning appliances and equipment that has been developed over the past decade. It would be a tremendous environment waste to simply throw out all gas appliances in favor of electric. Also consideration should be given to the fact that electricity is not self generating. Some of the electricity generated comes from Gas in areas where there is no hydroelectricity and wind/solar are no where close to being able to power the entire state. Battery technology is not at a place where solar can be used as a reliable source of power and the current battery and solar technology are environmental disaster and cannot be safely disposed of. Wind destroys flocks of birds and disrupts countless wildlife. Until the united states can develop a better safer battery and solar technology we must allow the use of energy efficient gas appliances to be utilized | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| George ,Deshaies | There is an urgent need to provide many homes without distribution lines in NYS with natural gas access. Then oil furnaces, propane and waste oil burning can be phased out. This will provide cheaper fuel to these homes, which will pump more family spending money into NYS's economy. Additionally, there will be far less greenhouse emissions going into our air. And the trucks hauling oil and propane can be used in the trucking industry to supplement the need for more shipping of food and commodities. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. I strongly oppose the placement of turbines in Lake Erie. These turbines will have huge bases. Underneath Lake Erie are salt mines. If these bases go thru into the salt mines our water will turn brackish destroying it forever. Please do not do this. Kerri Zygmunt Sent from my iPad | ||
| Betty,Szretter | Hello I strongly oppose this mandate and proposed ban on natural gas. I have lived in WNY all my life and enjoy the benefits of clean-burning natural gas. Our winters here are much colder than downstate and electricity is over 3X the cost of natural gas. To electrify everything makes absolutely no sense. It would be cost prohibitive for most folks. Here is Buffalo we have older home stock which is drafty and not very energy efficient. The Council's consultants have projected a cost of $20,000 - $50,000 to convert the average upstate home. Then the monthly bills will be higher-well over $200 per month. It makes no sense. It is similar to forcing everyone to buy brand-new Cadillacs instead of used Chevys even though they can't afford it. Millions are exiting NY state for Texas, Florida, etc. and we can't afford to lose any more residents. Please do not unfairly burden Western New Yorkers will this mandate. Thank you. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Hello, Your website doesn’t seem to be taking comments. It says required field, but all the fields are filled out appropriately. Please except the attached at my comment. Thank you, Mike Sigler Tompkins County Legislator, 6th District, Lansing, NY New York State’s Climate Action Plan Ambitious, Forward Thinking, and Visionary are terms that some will use for New York State’s Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan; Unworkable, Unrealistic, Light on Details, also work. NYS came out with its plan, the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan (1), at the end of last year. The report is heavy on goals, but light on how to achieve those goals. Under the section for power on page 37 it calls for a moratorium on new fossil fuel infrastructure and a retirement of existing fossil fuel infrastructure while also arguing against nuclear, hydrogen and biofuels. The only power generation acceptable under this plan is solar, wind, hydro, and undiscovered, undefined new technologies. On the same page the state calls for transition plans that respect local wisdoms, cultures and traditions. These two goals are in conflict. New York State uses 143 Terawatt hours of electricity a year.; one Terawatt hour is a million Megawatt hours used continuously for an hour. The state also uses 47 Billion cubic feet of natural gas, 126.5 million barrels of gasoline, and 57.4 million barrels of heating oil, some of that gas and oil goes to generate power, but most is for heating homes and powering transportation. This plan barely touches the electricity needs we have now without replacing the natural gas, gasoline and heating oil. Right now, the state gets almost all of its electricity from natural gas, 59.5 TWh, nuclear 40.8 TWh, and hydro, 24.2, TWh; keep in mind that the state has been closing its nuclear plants, filling that power deficit with out of state gas powerplants. The vast majority of hydro power comes from one source, Niagara Falls. (2) The problem with solar and wind is they are intermittent and production varies greatly depending on the time of year. A utility scale solar array may be rated for 200 Megawatts. That’s full sun, long daylight days. In January, these arrays will produce their least amount of power, close to zero if they are covered in snow. They produce about 20 percent of their rated capacity. Some will argue batteries will fill that gap, but something needs to fill those batteries with power and at a full charge they only supply between four and eight hours of power. Our nights are longer than that in the winter. This plan is calling for installed solar of 60 Gigawatts, or 60,000 Megawatts, of utility scale solar by 2050. (1, Pg. 74) That’s 1.5 million acres to generate the power the state is calling for. As solar companies apply for state money to build utility scale solar, one thing is clear, these arrays will cover hundreds of thousands of acres of active farm land. Why? The land is cleared, mostly flat, easily accessible and many times, near high tension powerlines. New York is a national leader in agriculture and this draft plan threatens to swamp that local tradition under utility scale solar. These are not the 25, 50 or even 100 acre arrays you can see dotting the countryside, but 1000, 2000, 3000 acre arrays. The report calls for upgrades in the grid, something you’d think NYSEG and the other power delivery companies would have been doing all along with the delivery charges on your bill, but the upgrades being called for here will either outpace those charges or will mean rapid increases in your bill. The powerlines on your street simply can’t handle the load if every house suddenly has an electric car and electric heat. Add to that, power use has held steady because of efficiency, but most of that low hanging fruit has been picked. With that gone, use will go up. If the state is serious about climate change, the only path forward that doesn’t cover all of Upstate in steel and glass, is nuclear. Offshore wind will fill some gaps as it can be closer to the end users so you have less power loss in transmission and yes, solar can play a role. However, this singular approach with wind and solar will not cover our energy use today, no matter tomorrow. Imagine every house switching to heat pumps as suggested for the City of Ithaca, and everyone turning to electric cars. Both may be more efficient, but they are still large energy draws. Put this plan in place and it’s hard to see any industrial manufacturers choosing to set up shop in NY. The report clocks in at 331 pages with another couple hundred pages of appendices. The state knows most people will not read though a book to see how this will impact them personally. It’s a way of making information public while not expecting input from the public. I hope you’ll prove the state wrong. The comment period is now open. Please go to the website and make your voice heard.https://climate.ny.gov/Our-Climate-Act/Draft-Scoping-Planhttps://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/NY_Energy%20Sector%20Risk%20Profile_0.pdf |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good day, Attached are the comments from the Green Sancturary Committee of Albany UU on the Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you for considering our comments. Chuck Manning, Chair Green Sanctuary Committee |
has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Do not destroy Lake Erie. They turbines in the Lake Will destroy our lake and damage the lake ecosystems maybe permanently. They will not generate enough power for the whole state and destroy our drinking water. Please Do not do this. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| Patricia,Maslowski | |||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. I expect to continue to file further comments as I study the plan. These comments apply to a number of topic areas including, but not limited to, electrification, environmental/climate justice, farms and forests, building and EVs as these are powered by fossil fuels, analysis of the plan, and achieving a decarbonization transition. My comments here appeared in the Ithaca Journal and Binghamton Sun Bulletin on the weekend of January 22nd (no link to online material) and, below that, with link, in the Oneonta Daily Star January 22nd. Thank you for considering my comments. Dennis Higgins NY climate plan should be balanced with nuclear power Your Turn Dennis Higgins Guest columnist The Climate Action Council (CAC) has released its draft scoping plan (the Plan) for implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). People should submit comments on its cost and environmental impacts — and even whether the Plan makes sense. Overbuilt wind and solar, new transmission infrastructure, storage and backup generation will be expensive. For example, the state energy research and development authority, NYSERDA, proposes 23 gigawatts (GW) of battery storage. According to the Energy Information Administration, four hours of storage at this capacity would cost over $30 billion. Yet as seen in California’s stumbling decarbonize efforts, storage coupled with solar and wind won’t lessen the need for dispatchable power. To avoid blackouts, California recently obtained federal waivers to build four new gas plants. The Independent System Operator (NYISO) and NYSERDA both admit that 'dispatchable emission-free' generation approaching the state’s current fossil-fuel power-plant capacity will be needed when renewables and storage fall short. The Plan recognized the 'need to ensure that an economy-wide program does not place a disproportionate burden on particular geographic portions of the state.' It emphasizes protection of forested land to mitigate carbon emissions. However, NYSERDA proposes generating up to 126 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity annually from solar; that would blanket over 500 square miles with glass, copper and steel. According to NYISO, thousands of wind turbines covering a million acres may be needed. Industrial wind and solar projects will target upstate communities, replacing farms and forests. They’ll be permitted through an 'accelerated siting' process designed to sidestep careful environmental review. Even as the Plan calls for a colossal buildout of wind and solar, it admits that those efforts are inadequate. The CAC writes 'NYISO has made it clear that innovation is critical to accelerating the development of new flexible and dispatchable resources' and suggests that success may hinge on 'new and emerging technologies (like energy storage, carbon capture and removal, and potential geoengineering).' Anyone paying attention will find the Plan disingenuous. It promises that 'Disadvantaged Communities will reap the benefits of New York’s transition to a low-carbon economy ...' and 'the State has already taken action toward this transition.' Yet, in the past few years, environmental justice communities were created when gigantic gas-fired power plants fired up in Dover and Wawayanda. In fact, electricity generation from fossil fuels in the state has gone up, not down. Instead of presenting hype, planners and politicians should appreciate the value of New York’s existing baseload carbon-free energy. For decades, nuclear power has produced reliable clean electricity, satisfying up to a third of state demand while generating high-paying union jobs. Furthermore, advanced nuclear technology can provide even greater flexibility, providing dispatchable carbon-free support for renewables in the future. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body that the CAC repeatedly cites — nuclear is essential to limiting the worst impacts of global warming. Rather than embracing an expensive, lopsided plan that will fail, New York should pursue a balanced approach involving rational support and expansion for renewables and nuclear energy. https://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/columns/guest-commentary-new-york-must-develop-a-coherent-energy-strategy/article_5ab7212f-188b-5ccb-8f1c-6c0f1a021b08.html New York must develop a coherent energy strategy State planners and politicians have put climate spin into high gear with the release of New York’s draft scoping plan, an 800-page document meant to guide energy policy. With singular hubris, the Climate Action Council writes: “Recognizing the complexity of the energy transition and the imperatives to mitigate the worst scenario projections of a warming global climate, New York stands ready to continue its legacy of climate leadership.” In her State of the State address, Gov. Kathy Hochul echoed those themes, speaking of climate leadership, renewable jobs and environmental justice. Residents of Queens’ Asthma Alley and environmental justice communities created by new gas power plants in Dover and Wawayanda could tell us that New York has made no progress at all in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Two years after adoption of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, oil and gas generators in metro New York and the lower Hudson Valley are spewing 10 million more tons of GHG emissions into the air every year to compensate for carbon-free energy lost by the premature closure of Indian Point. New York has big plans for offshore wind. But the claim that this makes us a “leader” is tough to swallow. According to staff in the governor’s office, by 2030 the downstate grid will be “significantly decarbonized” when 4.3 gigawatts of offshore wind come online. Currently, New York City is powered 90% by fossil fuels. Offshore wind has, at best, a 50% capacity factor because only infrequently does the wind blow sufficiently for maximum generation and wind often doesn’t blow at all. That 4.3 GW will produce — intermittently — less than 19,000 gigawatt-hours annually. That’s about what Indian Point produced in 2019. Taking 10 years to return electricity-sector emissions back to last decade’s levels is not much to brag about. Furthermore, onshore and offshore wind turbine performance degrades over time — 4.5% a year according to some sources. The amount of energy from a turbine installed today would drop to a fraction of its original output by mid-century. Since the state’s offshore wind turbines will be deployed over many years, their average capacity factor is likely to be far less than 50%. It’s no wonder that the CAC only talks about retiring small peakers; big gas plants will be used when renewables fail to provide sufficient power. The CAC asserts that “solar, wind, and other renewables, combined with energy storage, will deliver affordable and reliable electricity over the next decade and beyond.” According to analysis by New York’s independent grid operator — NYISO — thousands of wind turbines covering a million acres or more could be needed. Projections by the state energy research and development authority, NYSERDA, suggest that 500 square miles of rural farmland could be sacrificed for industrial-scale solar projects: That equates to an area the size of the city of Albany, covered in glass and steel, each and every year, for two decades. Despite the costly and environmentally damaging construction of solar fields and wind turbines, planners admit that New York would still need dispatchable capacity — supposedly, carbon-free — equal to our entire fleet of fossil-fuel power plants for when the weather doesn’t cooperate and storage is depleted. That capacity won’t be green hydrogen. Is the real plan just to keep burning gas? The promise of green jobs is also, sadly, misleading. Large-scale wind and solar projects need labor for construction but generate few permanent jobs. As reported by Forbes, the Samson Solar Energy Center in Texas will be the largest solar farm in the nation — blanketing 18,000 acres — but when complete it will create only 12 jobs. Here in New York, the recently approved Alle-Catt wind project will cover 30,000 acres, yet produce just 13 jobs after construction. Industrializing rural communities, as NYISO and NYSERDA have proposed, with sprawling energy projects, might create altogether a thousand permanent “green” jobs. More jobs than that were lost when Indian Point closed. Big Green groups tell us that powering the state with intermittent renewables will be amazingly affordable due to the falling costs of solar panels and wind turbines. In reality, the need to overbuild wind and solar, as well as the necessary transmission, storage and backup generation, do a hatchet job on any levelized-cost analysis. NYISO estimates that almost half the electricity produced by solar panels and wind turbines would be dumped if a predominantly renewable solution is pursued. Used or not, we’d have to pay for those solar panels, turbines, transmission and storage; we’d have to finance construction and maintenance of backup power, too. The governor and Big Greens are promoting the “beneficial electrification” of vehicles and heating systems. But to support that critical transition, we will need about twice as much electricity as we currently use. Electric vehicles won’t be “zero-emission” and buildings won’t have “renewable heat” if the electricity to power them comes from fossil fuels. Projects like “ExC” – which would boost deliveries of fracked gas to the metro region through the Iroquois Pipeline — suggest that New York has no plans to reduce gas combustion. We should be worried. The CAC’s plan won’t achieve state climate goals or ensure reliable carbon-free electricity; rather, it will increase energy costs and perpetuate environmental injustice; it tramples the rights of upstate residents, relying on Cuomo’s accelerated siting law to ignore public input and avoid thorough environmental review. In her defense, Gov. Hochul did not appoint the members of the CAC. Some are lobbyists representing the wind, solar and fossil-fuel companies ready to profit from incompetent planning. Some are ideologues, clinging to their talking points despite science and empirical evidence that proves them wrong. Government representatives on the council seem happy to go along with any outcome, no matter how absurd. New York already has reliable generators of carbon-free electricity, which provide thousands of high-paying jobs. In 2019, nuclear power produced a third of the state’s electricity and it continues to contribute to upstate New York’s low-carbon grid. In Washington, D.C., and in Illinois, leaders on both sides of the aisle have taken action to protect today’s fleet of nuclear plants recognizing that there is no cheaper way to generate carbon-free electricity. Elsewhere in the country, entrepreneurs are working to build the next generation of passively-safe reactors to replace fossil fuels, tackle climate change and restore our nation’s competitive edge. At the federal level, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently said, “We are very bullish on advanced nuclear reactors ... Nuclear is dispatchable, clean baseload power, so we want to be able to bring more on.” According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nuclear energy is essential to avoiding the worst impacts of global warming. It also has the smallest ecological footprint and material requirements of any energy source. Gov. Hochul inherited an energy-planning fiasco. Disingenuous press releases won’t fix that. If the governor is sincere in her commitment to science and honest government, she will include nuclear energy representatives in planning efforts and welcome an intelligent discussion of how advanced nuclear technology can ensure reliable carbon-free energy for New York’s future. |
||
| Noreen,Blanchard | The ridiculous tyrannical proposal which would make it illegal to burn firewood to heat homes is disgusting. Whoever wrote this legislation clearly has no idea what it’s like to live in rural NY. Thousands and thousands of people across the state keep their homes with firewood. The economic devastation that would be forced upon people who are already struggling under this tyrannical government makes this unjust law not only ridiculous but clearly unfeasible With all the dead trees we have in our forest it’s a great way to not only heat your home but clean up the environment. All I have to say to you people in power in New York is stop just stop. You’re out of touch. You’re ignorant. You’re obviously a bunch of communist | ||
| Sean,Faccilonga | As a native New Yorker who has lived in the state for 52 years, I have seen these draconian poliies such as these hidden proposals are the reasons why middle class New York residents are choosing to move out of NY to states like Florida and Texas. Middle class residents cannot afford to pay for higher energy costs like the rich folks can and they don't have the state government paying their heating and other energy costs because :they 'make too much". Wood burning stoves supplement already artificially created, skyhigh-home-heating-fuel-costs. Many middle class families who reside outside of the cities and suburbs rely heavily on burning wood in order to offset these high home heating costs. Without burning wood, these families could not afford to heat their homes. Many would be forced to follow their former neighbors and flee the obsurdity of NY. Stop the insanity. Bring back some common sense to NYS or many more tax paying middle class will flee the "rotten state of mind". Sean Faccilonga | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am writing to strongly voice my objection to building turbines in Lake Erie. These turbines are known to interfere with the migration of birds. We now have nesting pairs of Eagles which are protected. Will they be sacrificed for green energy. What about the fish? How will this affect the spawning in the spring. Please do not put these monstrosities in Lake Erie. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. I strongly oppose the placement of turbines in Lake Erie. These turbines will have huge bases. Underneath Lake Erie are salt mines. If these bases go thru into the salt mines our water will turn brackish destroying it forever. Please do not do this. Kerri Zygmunt Sent from my iPad | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | In the Figure 11 tab the Reduction in PM2.5 Annual Average Concentrations, Strategic Use of Low Carbon Fuels, 2050 is listed for each county in the state. There are two columns with listed reduction values: All fuels and Excluding the Benefits of Wood Combustion. The values in the spreadsheet table for the all fuels category are consistent with the map values in Figure 11 on page 34 of Section II of the Appendix G Integration Analysis Technical Supplement document. However, the values in the excluding benefits of wood combustion column are inconsistent with the map values in the corresponding figure in the document. The map scales are the same and consistent with the text description but the spreadsheet data are not consistent. | ||
| Dale,Halvarson | Living in Niagara County natural gas is a very important source of energy for my household. We use natural gas for cooking, heating both the house and water, and drying clothes and rarely if ever think about it, we just take it for granted it will always be there. Our monthly payment is on a budget plan and is the most affordable utility we use. If we had to convert to an alternative source it not only would be disruptive to the way we live but I can't imagine the expense, replacing heating, cooking, and drying equipment. Please keep natural gas as a choice of energy. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Thank you. From: erda.sm.eehpanel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:19 PM To: erda.sm.scopingplan Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: comments related to the required use of heat pumps in New York Dear Bill, Thank you for your comment, which I am forwarding to the central intake email ([email protected]) for comments on the draft Climate Action Council Scoping Plan. Best, Vanessa From: Bill Burdick <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 1:48 PM To: erda.sm.eehpanel <[email protected]v> Subject: RE: ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Cost comparison chart updated with current costs detailed at NYSERDA web page. Natural gas price was calculated according to my December utility bill and does not include $20 monthly service fee, i.e., it’s only the cost of the natural gas used and the cost of delivery for same. My usage is, by comparison to the average natural gas user, is much lower. Correspondingly, the price per therm used in the attached comparison affects a lower cost disadvantage than the actual for all fuel types compared to natural gas. From: Bill Burdick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2022 12:04 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: How do I submit comments related to the required use of heat pumps in New York, as proposed in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act? In particular, I would like to call to attention that a shift from oil, gas, propane and other heating “fuels” to electricity will create a substantial and significant increase in the need for electrical power generation and distribution. Does NY have the facilities, equipment, etc. to satisfy that demand? If not, what is the plan? What is the cost of meeting the increased demand? What is the environmental impact of meeting that demand? Also, as attached, the cost to create 1M BTUs using the currently available fuels differs, greatly. And, as detailed in that comparison by fuel type, the cost to generate 1M BTUs using an air-to-air heat pump is approximately 140% that of natural gas. That means that that consumers that currently use natural gas a heating fuel will pay 40 percent more to heat their homes if they transition from natural gas furnace to a heat pump. The total cost of that transition also includes the substantially higher cost of equipment, compared to a natural gas furnace. The council needs to quantify the total cost (supply, delivery, capital equipment, equipment repair, etc.), climate impact, the cost of necessary changes to NYS electrical grid, etc. in order to quantify the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed transition to heat pump heating systems. Bill Burdick Niskayuna NY 518 346-7329 [email protected] |
||
| Richard,Laberge | Regarding residences converting to all electric for HVAC and the timing of same (2024/2030), what assurances are there that the average New Yorker will not face a tremendous burden of additional cost from ever rising electricity costs, and the burden of capital costs for conversion? NYS is in the top tier of states for electricity and while investments in renewable energy are being made, the cost of electricity is still rising. National Grid was recently approved for a 4% increase over the next 3 years. The electrification initiative will hurt those who can least afford to pay for their housing the most. Before the mandates for all electric homes are put in place, more time and incentives are needed to get the public and the HVAC industry headed that way so that the New Yorkers that are are initially affected by the proposed regulations (new home buyers and then existing fossil fuel furnace owners) are not saddled with a disproportionate burden. While the industry can move swiftly once certainty in the regulations are achieved, if industry is forced to move too fast, the costs will be steep. The new home mandate should be at least a ten year horizon from finalization of regulations, and the conversion should be at least twenty years. Financial incentives to electrify should come from other sources of funds than electricity surcharges since all New Yorkers are expected to benefit. | ||
| [email protected] |
Dear Bill, Thank you for your comment, which I am forwarding to the central intake email ([email protected]) for comments on the draft Climate Action Council Scoping Plan. Best, Vanessa From: Bill Burdick <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 1:48 PM To: erda.sm.eehpanel <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Cost comparison chart updated with current costs detailed at NYSERDA web page. Natural gas price was calculated according to my December utility bill and does not include $20 monthly service fee, i.e., it’s only the cost of the natural gas used and the cost of delivery for same. My usage is, by comparison to the average natural gas user, is much lower. Correspondingly, the price per therm used in the attached comparison affects a lower cost disadvantage than the actual for all fuel types compared to natural gas. From: Bill Burdick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2022 12:04 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: How do I submit comments related to the required use of heat pumps in New York, as proposed in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act? In particular, I would like to call to attention that a shift from oil, gas, propane and other heating “fuels” to electricity will create a substantial and significant increase in the need for electrical power generation and distribution. Does NY have the facilities, equipment, etc. to satisfy that demand? If not, what is the plan? What is the cost of meeting the increased demand? What is the environmental impact of meeting that demand? Also, as attached, the cost to create 1M BTUs using the currently available fuels differs, greatly. And, as detailed in that comparison by fuel type, the cost to generate 1M BTUs using an air-to-air heat pump is approximately 140% that of natural gas. That means that that consumers that currently use natural gas a heating fuel will pay 40 percent more to heat their homes if they transition from natural gas furnace to a heat pump. The total cost of that transition also includes the substantially higher cost of equipment, compared to a natural gas furnace. The council needs to quantify the total cost (supply, delivery, capital equipment, equipment repair, etc.), climate impact, the cost of necessary changes to NYS electrical grid, etc. in order to quantify the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed transition to heat pump heating systems. Bill Burdick Niskayuna NY 518 346-7329 [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am writing to strongly oppose the placement of Turbines in Lake Erie. The Turbines will be permanent and cause irreversible damage to the lake. When they become obsolete the gigantic platforms will still be there. Whose responsibility will it be to dismantle the Turbines when they no longer work. Please do not place these in Lake Erie. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. I strongly oppose the placement of turbines in Lake Erie. These turbines are huge and will essentially pollute our drinking water. The chemicals used for deicing will be sprayed on the blades and fall into our drinking water potentially poisoning the water for many thousands of people. Please do not do this to Lake Erie. Kerri Zygmunt to Sent from my iPad | ||
| John,Ditmars | HopeWell Farms | Been burning wood for generations, no plan to ever stop | |
| Kevin,Leonard | Very Concerned Citizen of NY | I am currently reading this 861 page law. I am not done yet but I need to reply to you about how disappointed I am in this draft. And law in general. -Way to many over reaches and false claims -Wording like believe, we feel, experts, projected, more likely, possible and numerous other words to describe feelings and not facts. -your weather science is lacking details and is only based on from 1970 til now. -the law is suppose to stop hurricanes and heart attacks! Get real people. -sea rise and erosion have been going on for millions of years. There are cycles and your just unhappy with this current time period. -paying more money and taxes won’t fix Mother Earth -stop saying justice. It’s a word that implies that a crime has been committed in order for there to be justice. There has been no crime. Nature does it thing. We can’t stop her. -there is no evidence by real doctors that say heart attacks will be reduced if we all drive electric cars and shut down our firewood stoves. So stop with the fake facts from so called experts. Which you don’t say the names of these experts. - I will be emailing again more when I read more of the proposal. So far this law is a disaster. And Vermont has a totally approach to climate emissions. So why approve yours when other places might have a better way? | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I strongly oppose turbines in our Lake Erie. This is an act that will affect thousands and thousands of people. How will the shedding of BPA go the blades affect our drinking water. Will it poison it. What about the History under the water. Many shipwrecks and Historical artifacts will be plowed under and lost forever. Please oppose these monstrosities. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I strongly oppose these monstrosities being placed in our Lake Erie. No environmental impact studies have been conducted. How will this affect the migration of the birds? How will this affect our drinking water? What impact will it have on people who fish but wont be able to around the drop zones. Please do not place these and destroy our lake. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| Will,Crandall | My family would be Against any regulation to ban woodburning whether it be for home heating or recreation. Ditto for the ban on gas hookups, Draconian bans alientate voters. As fossil fuels that are oil based are a limited resource we, as a society, should be planning ahead to best deal with the possiblility oil is not available in the future. Using natural gas as a transition fuel makes a lot of sense. It is much less of a polluter, excess carbon dioxide is a pollutant after all, has lower emmisions, and America has a great deal of it close by. The ability to transition to more use of electric energy is going to take a lot longer than you think. The support industry does exist yet. Using hydro power is a wonderful idea-but are you aware current NYS law makes building a new hydroelectric faciltiy incredibly difficult? Many, many people have tried, pretty much all have failed. the process has become impossible to navigate. NYS has the ability to harness quite a bit of natural energy thru the use of hydro electric dams but we just don not seem be able to make it happen. The benefits to local communites for new hydro electric facitlites is pretty big. It would not solve the entire problem but is something that should be looked at a lot harder-especially in a State that has the rives and lakes that we do. Finally, instead of issuing ideas that anger or polarize thousands and thousands New York residents how working with them instead of against them? The idea that if a certain goal is not reached by a fixed date or all is lost demeans the entire process. The ice caps did not melt by the year 2000. Remember when that was predicted? Anyone over 40 does. If you goal to reduce the average tempertaure by 2 degrees Celcius falls a tenth of a degree short the sky will not fall, honest. Make small resonable goals and find a way for politicians to communicate them in a simple straight forward fashion. Or you will probably fail. Good luck. Will Crandall | ||
| Vicky ,Hattala | As a taxpayer in New York State I believe I should have the freedom to choose the type of energy I use to fuel my home and my car. My choices should not be limited by the state of NY. Who will pay the cost for converting all the home appliances from gas to electric? That part of the plan is not mentioned although research indicates this will cost each homeowner between $20,000 - $50,000. This type of government control is just one more reason to leave NYS. | ||
| Ivan,Vamos | NYS Bicycling Coalition (NYBC.net), NYS Trails Council, on road bicycling representative | I submitted a written statement, somewhat longer than the 2000 character limit. To summarize; A goal of supporting increasing s hort trips made by walking and bicycling, versus by the use os a private motor vehicle, should be a strategy specifically included in the Transportation Chapter of the Scoping document. Programs to achieve these goals are already in recent laws and policies aimed at providing safe facilities for these modes of travel and other safety measures. The Climate Action goals should recognise, support and take credit for these beneficial on-going and planned transportation programs. | has attachment |
| Adrin,DarJean | We do not need more regulation on existing homes and buildings. Only new constructions should be encouraged, but not required, to go all electric. Considering our frail electrical grid, forcing people out of options to run their private businesses or residences is irresponsible and far too overreaching. Doing so only benefits the electrical manufacturing sector, yet hurts the people who live in NYS, pay taxes and participate in elections. The climate here is much too harsh to be dependent on the electrical grid in the dead of winter. Let us not forget that these systems fail and can result in loss of life. The more options people are afforded, the better. This should be the choice of the individual business or homeowner, not something mandated by the state. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am writing to oppose Turbines in Lake Erie. It will negatively impact our environment. How will they be deiced in the winter when no one can get to them? The deiceng fluid will fall into the water further polluting our water. Please dont put them in our lake. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| Mark,Thornton | The proposed Plan does not address the most important consideration which is cost to the consumer. While almost everyone agrees we want and need a cleaner environment, it cannot be achieved without addressing the overall direct cost to the individuals, families, and businesses. Intangible long-term benefits such as improved health will not result in lower health insurance premiums. Nor will reduced theoretical weather incidents result is less flooding and building damages with corresponding reduced insurance premiums. Yet the consumer and business owner will bear substantial and unaffordable costs to implement this plan as drafted. One example is the cost to convert a single family home to all electric energy. Consultants have estimated the cost to be $20,000 to $50,000 to convert a home from natural gas to all electric. How does the consumer recover this cost? This does not even include the additional costs required to improve the building envelope. Nor does it include the increased cost of electricity and the increased cost of natural gas rates needed to recover stranded utility costs during the transition. Between conversion costs of older homes, of which there are many in New York State, and increased cost to build new homes, housing will become even more unaffordable to a large part of the population. Already existing costs of home construction and excessive property tax rates are driving many from the State as seen in the last census. This Plan will only accelerate the population loss as costs spiral upwards. This will further burden the budgets of those who cannot leave New York State as increased costs are placed upon those remaining. The strategy to reduce GHG emissions needs to recognize these costs to individuals and businesses. And it needs to include an "all of the above" energy model that includes natural gas. This abundant, low cost, and clean fuel should be a major part of the solution in reducing GHG emissions. | ||
| Robert,Wargo | It seems the residential electrification will actually increase CO2e emissions. First order effect: the increased electric load will likely be met by natural gas power plant generation. There is no viable plan to scale renewables to the necessary levels by 2030. Residential electrification shifts the point of emissions from the consumer’s site to the power plant. It additionally increases the amount of emissions due to energy losses inherent during conversion. Second order: their will be a bulk creation in emissions from upstream industries e.g. manufacturers building appliances that wouldn’t otherwise need to be built and construction in converting home. This well meaning policy leads to the opposite effect from what is desired. | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I am writing to voice my opposition to turbines in our lake. This is our drinking water. You are putting these monstrosities in. They will stir up all the pollution that has settled and formed a crust from the Bethlehem Steel plant. You will poison us and our children for green power that will never produce enough enery for our state. Rose Zygmunt Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Hello, I am writing to you to express my deep concern over this highly controversial topic of NYS developing and placing industrial wind turbines in Lake Erie, one of our greatest natural resources existing in this state, our neighboring states and Canada. I am extremely upset to hear that NYS would jeopardize the health and safety of not only our citizens of this state, but those in neighboring states who also border Lake Erie, and those residents in Canada, all of whom depend on safe drinking water from Lake Erie. Placing these monstrosities in our lake poses a major threat to to the safety and quality of our drinking water as these turbines contain hundreds, if not thousands of gallons of lubricants, toxic substances and heavy metals, all of which the EPA and current generations have worked VERY hard to improve the overall health of the lake since the era of industry, steel, and pollution of early generations irresponsibly polluted our lake with. Now it seems once again, greed, money and political power are again jeopardizing the health of this drinking source to some 11 million plus people, not to mention the people who enjoy the lake for recreation, swimming and fishing. The animals and natural life that depend on the health of the water itself are now at stake as are the numerous migratory and protected bird and bat species who fly in the path of these turbines which are known to kill many birds and bats, including endangered and protected species. Disruption of the lake floor where there lives the pollutant sediments of our past seems logical when you plan to drill, hammer, dig, etc the foundations for these things?? Not to mention the ongoing vibrations turbines make would also disrupt these sediments. How is it even possible that the use of massive amounts of concrete, steel, fiberglass, rare earth metals and various fossil fuel lubricants that go into the construction and ongoing maintenance of these wind turbines could even be considered "green" or "renewable"??? Yes, wind is a natural, renewable resource, but ALL of the extensive research that I have done has proven to me that the only thing that is "green" about these industrial wind projects, are the plentiful tax subsidies, energy credits, and energy bill surcharges that benefit the Developers! ALL OF WHICH IS FUNDED BY US TAXPAYERS!! This is absolutely criminal and quite possibly the largest scam in our existence today!!! Gee, wouldn't it be nice to start a business where the majority of my startup costs would be funded by the state government? And then my product would be paid for by taxpayer money? What developer WOULDN'T want to start a wind project??? Clearly that is all they are after because the science and data from other countries who have tried this unreasonable, ineffective, INCONSISTENT source of energy have all concluded that wind is NOT THE ANSWER. Yes, wind itself is a renewable resource, but the technology we currently have available to harvest it, could not be farther from renewable. Especially when NY State and their extreme politics and appointed officials are pushing this agenda DESPITE massive citizen opposition over health and wellness concerns, environmental concerns, and last but not least, the shere economics of who is involved and who is truly benefiting from these STUPID ideas. Why has NY State not deemed nuclear electricity generation renewable??? It's safe and TRULY carbon neutral! It's a fantastic, efficient, safe, and RELIABLE energy source. Why has Natural Gas been blacklisted??? Also a VERY CLEAN, highly abundant energy resource with massive infrastructure ALREADY IN PLACE. Germany tried going the way of wind and solar, and they found that it failed to provide sufficient energy, and it was far too inconsistent which led to rolling blackouts and Germany needing to BUY electricity from neighboring countries, at a FAR HIGHER COST!!! Is that what this state wants for its citizens?? Our taxes aren't high enough in NYS, our cost of living isn't high enough in this state, so let's make it harder for the average person to keep their lights on. Oh, and while we are at it, let's take away natural gas and force people to use electricity to heat their homes in winter. But it's fine, no power when our grid and power sources can't meet demand? Just freeze!!! You know what? Gasoline for cars is bad too, let's make everyone get electric vehicles to drive. Then when we have rolling blackouts and high energy costs, it will be impossible for our citizens to travel or too costly! WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT?!?!?! Backwards policies like this(often and most likely driven by $$$$$ or people too stupid to know better) is what is driving people out of this shithole excuse of a state. But hey, maybe that is what you want? Drive out the oposition so we can rape and pilliage the land and control those who are left! Keep them sick, stupid and blind to what is really happening. NYSERTA and NYS makes me sick. I despise the political leaders and appointed officials who support wind energy not only in one of the greatest natural resources and largest source of clean, fresh water available, but the projects they are forcing down landowner's throats in rural areas of this state, and also the asinine idea of placing wind turbines in ANY BODY OF WATER. I'm sure if I put any links to real "data" and "science" that contradict your political views and agendas and kickbacks you likely receive from developers and Wall Street investors you'd dismiss it for "misinformation" anyways, so I will spare you. Just know there IS MUCH data and science and REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of why wind turbines ARE NOT THE ANSWER, NO MATTER WHAT. PERIOD!!! Sincerely, A Concerned and Pissed off Citizen, Jeremiah Bretl |
||
| Barbara,Dominiak | You can't allow this to go through. Taking natural gas away from homes would negatively impact our economy in such a huge way. People are struggling to keep their heads above water in many areas already. They can't afford to convert their homes. And this doesn't even mention the kick to the economy for the loss of jobs in the natural gas field. This is like a death sentence to many if this goes through. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TRAGEDY TO OCCUR. PEOPLE ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE PANDEMIC. A BLOW LIKE THIS WOULD LITERALLY KILL PEOPLE. CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO OTHERS? | ||
| Bryan,Wallace | New York state again thinking they know what's best for ALL people. Right now its ~10 outside. Electric heat pumps, the most efficient form of electric heat energy does not work well below 20deg. Most people will convert to the most "efficient" means to heat, which will not work efficiently when we really need it to. This will have an exponential effect on the electricity needed during cold days. At this point, the electric grid is already subsidized by the burning of natural gas to create additional power. What's the plan for the additional millions of people that will need to convert in 2 years and the load it will have on the grid, especially on cold days. Mass power outages across the state...I think so! I am all for actions to take against climate change and the reduction of our carbon footprint, but as a state we tackle things incredibly stupidly. Increasing offshore wind power. Wind power sucks, it’s been around forever, there is a reason it never took off. As for solar panels, "solar farms" are popping up all across NY in open fields and surrounding homes devaluing people’s homes that have lived there for years. Taking hard earned asset dollars away from working families. If you want solar panels to work, try putting them on top of buildings, on top of parking lots to shade our cars, etc.. This would actually make sense, something that this state fails to do. There is so much more we should be worried about before we decide to make every house in NY convert to electric, something that last I checked only 2 states in the country are pushing. Every other state will still use natural gas, including Canada. Canada isn’t moving away from natural gas because it works and it’s the most efficient form of heat in cold climates, at this time. The top things we should be doing to combat carbon production are things like protecting our oceans and forests. Things that clean our planet! I only pray that our local governments will override this ideocracy. | ||
| Michael,Weidner | I am concerned with the plan to prohibit natural gas heating (space/water) in new homes by 2024 and prohibiting natural gas heating replacement by 2030. Numerous factors concerns me. First - the cost to convert homes of $20,000-$50,000 is alarming (especially relative to the value of homes in Western New York). As alarming as the initial conversion cost would be, the ongoing cost of electric heating is significantly larger than the cost of natural gas heating (especially in the winter season). This will decrease disposable income, and will likely push more people out of the state - further hitting the economy. Second - this will put more load/stress on the electric grid (from both an electricity generation perspective and a transmission perspective), and I am not confident in its ability to hold-up, which will lead to public safety concerns. That being said - I completely support higher efficiency standards for all appliances (including natural gas appliances), as well as further efforts to increase wind/solar electric generation, and efforts to increase electricity storage capacity (for when daily demand exceeds daily electricity generation). In short, I fear this proposal is both dangerous to our economy and public safety.. | ||
| Evan,Crahen | An important consideration of the Draft Scoping Plan that is missing from the analysis is consumer cost. According to the Council's consultants, it could cost between $20,000 to $50,000 to convert a single-family home from natural gas to all electric. That cost is substantial, especially in the western New York region, where the median sales price of a home is $159,000, well below the national average. There is a significant cost associated with the retrofitting the millions of existing homes and buildings that currently use natural gas. The Draft Scoping Plan does not offer any financial solutions on how this will be paid for. This cost should not be shouldered by consumers or the general public. | ||
| Kellen,Murphy | Murphy Forest Management, LLC | Hello, As a consulting forester in Central New York, and small business owner, I have confined my comments to the sections that effect me the most professionally, ethically, and financially. Amending 480-a, and creating 3 new versions called 480-b, c and d is unnecessary. 480-a is quickly becoming an entirely worthless program for the landowners enrolled in it. There is no interpretation of the program at the regional level anymore. There is no collegiality between private and public foresters anymore. Town assessors and county clerks hate enrolling properties and undermine the program whenever they can. The 480-a program in NY is far and away the worst state operated timber tax plan in the country. Adding 3 more programs just like it, to be implemented by DEC, which is already grossly understaffed, and has watched the 480-a program become an abysmal failure over the last 10 years is ridiculous. In my estimation, the failures of the 480-a program can all be traced back to one thing: Unnecessary oversight and auditing from Albany. The emphasis that DEC implement 480-a consistently across the state, and the imposition that central authority in Albany places on regional foresters eliminates the ability of these regional foresters to make interpretations based on the communities, the markets, the land uses, the ecology, and the wisdom they have gained from spending decades managing forests in their region. We need to give discretion back to regional foresters before we attempt to change 480-a, or implement 3 new types of it. And 15 acre minimums is ridiculous. 15 acres is not a forest, its a patch of woods. | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good Morning, I am writing to provide my comment on the proposed wind farm project on Lake Erie. I am NOT in favor of this project. The first concern is how much of an impact ecologically the wind farm will have on the lake. Lake Erie is one of the Gems of WNY and to put wind turbines in that beautiful piece of nature would be a shame. Views would be ruined and changed forever. I can appreciate our efforts to help reduce greenhouse gases and start working more with renewable energy, but I am not convinced that Wind and Solar is truly going to support our energy needs moving forward and once these turbines and panels are installed, they are fairly permanent. I live in Wyoming County where there are hundreds of Wind Turbines and the % of electricity that they produce compared to the needed energy just for our area isnt enough. With contracts coming to a close, and the possibility of the companies not renewing, what do we do with these monstrous turbines on our property and landscape? Much of these decisions seem to be made in the short term, trying to immediately fix a problem but causing many problems for the next generation. We have a duty to leave this earth better for the next generation, and I'm concerned that fencing off fields for solar and building wind turbines on the landscape wont do that. It changes the landscape dramatically for generations to come. My opinion, Thank you. Billy Harvey 585-409-6656 Pertnear Outdoors IG and FB Podcast host- Pertnear Outdoors Podcast |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Though this plan only discusses the positive benefits of decarbonization, many disbenefits can be anticipated. One is that it will make energy significantly more expensive. More expensive energy will create considerable demand for fuel free transportation. Think Europe and Asia where energy is relatively costly. It'll be like that but on steroids. To accommodate this future, the plan should actively call for expanded bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Further, there should be a look at regulations on delivering packages and freight in urban areas as more and more of it shifts to carrier cycles and cargo bikes. I realize a comment like this rains on the green energy parade. Nevertheless, the plan should more explicitly address bike and pedestrian issues arising from its inevitable economic impacts. |
||
| Joe Muncey |
?January 9, 2022 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-0001, 518-402-8448, [email protected] Dear Honorable Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act members, my wife and I are writing you today to share our concerns with “New York State Climate leadership and community protection act” (S6599 / A8429). We feel that this legislation is misguided and overreaching, and decreases local control; will hurt upstate families, businesses, farms - income and saving, and devastate business development and job stability, in rural communities, and downtown areas, within the New York and beyond. We and our son combined own and manage three lots of private forest totaling approximately 100 acres, in the township of Salisbury. The “New York State Climate leadership and community protection act” decreases the value of the timber that is on theses land (and others) that can be sold for timber, lumber, firewood, and other uses. Firewood is a “Green” natural renewable low-cost energy source used from the beginning of mankind to cook food, heat dwellings, and its byproducts are used for enriching the soil for food crops, and reforesting. As the forest grows carbon is removed from the earth’s atmosphere and is stored in woodlands, and oxygen is released into the environment. Byproducts of Solar Panels although promoted as completely safe for the environment is a misrepresentation, the truth is that each solar panel is made of chemical materials such as arsenic and cadmium, in a process that generates countless tons each year of toxics such as Hexafluoride, Sulfur and Silicon Tetrachloride. The disposal of solar system components has been typically highly toxic, and a problem at a significant fiscal cost to electric rate payers, if reclaimed correctly. These toxic byproducts are not only dangerous for the environment, but also for humans and animals (domesti |
||
| Joseph Muncey |
?Fulton County Office Building, January 9, 2022 ****** Street, ****, Johnstown, NY 12095, Phone ***-***-**** C/O Senator James Tedisco Dear Honorable New York State Senator James Tedisco my wife and I are writing you today to share our concerns with “New York State Climate leadership and community protection act” (S6599 / A8429). We feel that this legislation is misguided and overreaching, and decreases local control; will hurt upstate families, businesses, farms - income and saving, and devastate business development and job stability, in rural communities, and downtown areas, within the New York Senate District 49, and beyond. We and our son combined own and manage three lots of private forest totaling approximately 100 acres, in the township of Salisbury. The “New York State Climate leadership and community protection act” decreases the value of the timber that is on theses land (and others) that can be sold for timber, lumber, firewood, and other uses. Firewood is a “Green” natural renewable low-cost energy source used from the beginning of mankind to cook food, heat dwellings, and its byproducts are used for enriching the soil for food crops, and reforesting. As the forest grows carbon is removed from the earth’s atmosphere and is stored in woodlands, and oxygen is released into the environment. Byproducts of Solar Panels although promoted as completely safe for the environment is a misrepresentation, the truth is that each solar panel is made of chemical materials such as arsenic and cadmium, in a process that generates countless tons each year of toxics such as Hexafluoride, Sulfur and Silicon Tetrachloride. The disposal of solar system components has been typically highly toxic, and a problem at a significant fiscal cost to electric rate payers, if reclaimed correctly. These toxic byproducts are not only dangerous for the environment, but also for humans and animals (domestic and w |
||
| Louise Potter | If the CLCPA's goal is to electrify all household heating and appliances, along with our entire transportation network, then it is also creating the single largest weakness to our state (and it's people) in history. All it would take to shut down our entire state and create a catastrophic landscape would be for a foreign actor to take down our electrical grid. Imagine a NY in which you have enacted all of these goals (we are 85% electrified) it is the dead of winter and the grid gets shut down. People would not even be able to travel to receive or give help because all of our vehicles are also electrified. It does not even need to be a foreign actor that does this, in the world of climate change extreme weather events that take out the grid are not only likely, but a certainty. I am not against climate mitigation in any way, but before any of this legislation gets enacted you better make damn sure that our electrical grid is bullet proof. I suspect that you won't. Too many upfront costs of course, but you are setting the entire state up for chaos and failure if you don't. I'm not being an alarmist. It doesn't take much to imagine the scenario I laid out. Do not enact these policies without taking care of our security first. The electrical grid needs to be made robust in ways I can't even imagine. Make that your #1 priority. | ||
| Carol Nelson | I am writing to address the rumors I’ve heard and then reading a news report that states that NYS may be eliminating wood burning as a heat source by 2050. I’ve lived in rural NY all my life and have depended on wood as a supplement to burning fuel, as an emergency source (when the power goes out which is FREQUENT durning any storm here) our only heat source was wood, the wood stove ran in a gravity fed system through our baseboard hot water system, and I’ve relied wood as the sole heat source when prices rose so high that it was put fuel in the tank or food in our table. It has literally saved lives. We have gifted split wood to families in need, so that they might stay warm. Too many upstate residents rely on wood as a heat source to ban it at ANY time in the future. Think about all the repercussions before you act. I am wholeheartedly against any move to ban wood burning or banning wood stoves, (indoor or outdoor) or fireplaces in existing homes/businesses, or new construction. I was in a local business the other day that had a wood stove for heat, they wouldn’t be in business if they had to pay for a different heat source. Please remember also that most of our “clean†electric comes from burning coal! I’d much rather my wood stove thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. Carol Nelson | ||
| Dylan LeMay | Do not ban wood burning! There is no justice in oppressing the self sufficiency of the poor. It is a ridiculous, completely out of touch action. The US makes up 2% of the world's greenhouse gasses. Per Capita we're one of the most green countries. Stop this madness. | ||
| Andrew Rosenthal | Stop the Chop NYNJ | The current report fails to address one of the easiest ways to reduce climate changing gasses by reducing or eliminating nonessential helicopter activities. Fossil-fuel guzzling nonessential helicopters, such as those used for tourist joyrides, are the antithesis of environmentally-friendly modes of transport. We must end the use of such carbon-intensive, unnecessary aircraft incessantly flying in our airspace for no good reasons. These helicopters also have direct negative health consequences due to noise and toxic emissions, extremely negative quality of life issues due to their noise, and safety issues as demonstrated by the many fatal crashes in the past. There is much support for this ban including pending legislation at both the federal (HR 1643) and State (Senate Bill 7493/Assembly Bill 8473) levels. New York should ban these nonessential flights using New York heliports immediately. | |
| Jeremy Bartholomew | Acorn acres | We have been building a green off grid homestead for years. We harvest wood from our land as our means to heat out home. I build a e-bike for transportation and charge if from our solar system. It’s absurd to think someone can outlaw wood burning on a homeowner scale. I’ll Pay attention to public meeting and be very vocal against this proposal | |
| Laura Faulring | Stop taking away from our means of life you have shut down our manufacturing and jobs just stop we need jobs we need our life resources renewed but electricity is not the answer the power grids cause health problems a well maintained system of all our resources is the answer a balance of resources will maintain our jobs and maintain our wellness the major corporations are a good example of needing watching not a 200 acre farm that heats their home with wood | ||
| Laurie Fessler | Have you LOST your mind over "climate" justice! The thought of doing away with gas is INSANE. Up here in the Adirondacks, NOBODY can depend on electricity. A fine example yesterday someone hit a telephone pole. Why the power company decided to replace it at 1 am while everyone was sleeping on the COLDEST night of the year is beyond my comprehension. Everyone that required electric for heat tape(frozen pipes) or supplemental heat inside were screwed and my had broken pipes alone with water heaters that froze, cracked and flooded houses. I will take your climate BS serious when you take the environment SERIOUSLY and stop POISONING it with pesticides, week killers, etc. STOP controlling out lives! | ||
| Michelle Springer | Under no circumstance should the state of NY and it’s elected and unelected bureaucrats create any law code or mandate that takes away peoples right to choose what fuel they heat their homes with- wood burning should not be banned nor limited under any condition! I am disgusted I even have to send this message- you need to check your egos and opinions- shame on NY and it’s mostly unelected government officials who seek to control human behavior and limit freedom of choice to have heat and power especially as a back up plan during winter and wind storms! | ||
| Lindsay Chapman | I am writing this in regards to possible legislation limiting the use of fire wood for home heating. As someone who resides in the north country and depends on wood heat to keep my family warm during our long winter months, a change to the ability to access this type of energy would severely hurt not just my family but our community. Not just the small business owners who depend on the sale of firewood to support their families, but the families that depend on firewood to adequately heat their home at affordable cost. | ||
| Stephen Jakala | I really hope you aren't planning to actually ban or even control burning cordwood completely. I can't really tell what you're up to looking at the bill itself. Yea I get your general premise but I don't have faith that you won't try to get whatever it is you are planning done without stepping on as little of the people you represent as possible. Please allow proper time and opportunity to allow the majority to express their concerns. | ||
| Karen Ganotes | Again tax, tax, tax. We pay the highest taxes in the country-and you want to add a per mile tax? Who do you think you are? If you can’t make due with the highest tax in country you all have issues. No gas vehicles? You would have to take 2 days to go from NY to Maine instead of a 3-1/2 to 4 hour trip. Also $22,000 to replace the batteries in a car that is not paid off? Electricity from solar-I have a panel and the lack of sun in the state doesn’t even generate enough power to keep a Ring camera charged. Trying to limit the types of products we can heat our homes with makes you nothing more than dictators! You goals are too lofty. The fact that you want to adopt any of California’s policies tells me how out of touch this whole bill is. Good luck staying in office with this over the top legislation. | ||
| Heidi Kreider | Re: wood burning ban proposal Many New Yorkers rely on the sustainable source of wood burning to heat their homes. Trees can be replenished and logging companies already follow a plant three for each tree removed policy. By approving this ban, you will force numerous households to change their heat source and make costly conversions to adapt. Even if the government were to aid in this transation, there is no guarantee that every person will receive the adequate funding on top of how the money will be generated.(No doubt from the taxpayers yet again.) In addition to this financial burden, you will once again be shutting down job options when we should be concerned with creating jobs. Surely there are other ways to cut down on emissions that would have less of a financial impact on the people. | ||
| Francis Navojosky | Do not restrict the use of one of the most carbon neutral fuels by the common public. To reduce emissions, bring industry back to the US where emissions can be regulated, vs. allow other countries like China to manufacture and pollute the air which only carries by the natural eastward winds and pollutes our country more than if the US ran the industries and controlled their emissions. If the trend is toward electric use to reduce emissions, how is that electricity made? By burning what? Aren’t we just transferring the source of emissions and introducing inefficiencies in energy conversion? | ||
| Lacey Graves | There are many issues that come with the banning of burning firewood. I understand the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, however, we also have to think about the safety of the people otherwise. There have been times where winters in parts of New York have been harsh enough to cause outages in which electric heaters could not be used. While it may be common in places such as the city, not everyone can afford generators. The people that will be most effected by this ban are people with low income, those who have religious values that prohibit the use of electricity, and those who live in areas where outages happen frequently. More and more often, people of lower income are being left to struggle to survive. My own family once had a time where our furnace broke and we were unable to afford to have it fixed for a short time in the dead of winter. I became severely ill from this and had we had a wood stove and firewood at the time, I may very well would not have lost two weeks of my life and memory while being very ill in bed. It's important to remember that what you, and the people you personally know have access to isn't accessible to everyone. There are people who choose to live off-grid for their own reasons and solar panels have been proven not only to be ineffective in areas where the sun isn't very strong, but it takes a massive amount of energy to create them. We also have to think about the penalties involved with the use of electricity. We've been trying to push forward being green by switching to electricity, such as with vehicles, and yet we aren't thinking about the negative impacts of doing so. Electricity is damaging to the planet as well, and even to humans. Electro-magnetic fields are caused by electronic output and have been proven to cause not only visual disturbances but feelings of illness. With a ban on firewood, we'll be increasing electronic input for those that wish to stay warm. | ||
| Ricky Menard | what is next after banning wood stoves????? CAMP FIRES?????? IINDUSTRY IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF POLUTION EXISTS. REALLY! WHAT PERCENTAGE OF New Yorkers WHO BURN WOOD FULL TIME? RIDICULOUS | ||
| Alissa Gregory | My name is Alissa Gregory. I was raised by a career long police officer and school guidance counselor. I was raised to know how to live off the land. I was raised in a home with a wood stove. NYS brings great winters and low temperatures, storms, and temperatures that drop at night to 10° or lower at least 30-60 days of the winter. With these storms brings power outages, that in my 23 years of life I have seen last up to 5 days at a time living in the country. Without ur wood stove we would be forced to leave our pets and home for these periods of time. Our wood stove allowed us to heat water for bathing, cooking, and warmth on numerous occasions. While others with forced heat and pellet stoves were less fortunate, we stayed warm. I was raised around camp fires and friends 6 months out of the year for 23 years. I was raised in Salamanca NY where many friends and family are loggers or employed by Salamanca lumber. How will our Amish community be able to survive in NYS with these propositions? They will be forced out. Everything I have read is threatening our way of life and everything we have ever known. I was raised to respect the land, not litter, be apart of conservation, respect wildlife, and so much more. Please, let my voice be heard. We do not support the decision of these possible new laws and bans. Please if your reading this, understand their are different ways of life than the city. This is America, home of the brave and free. This would take away more of our freedoms and right to live the way my family has known for generations. This is not the answer to protect our environment and atmosphere. | ||
| Barbara Kalamas | I am concerned about the possible ban on firewood for use in heating homes. I live in the foothills of the Adirondack Mountains where our winters can be very long, snowy and cold. Our home has been heated with wood since its construction in 1978. We cut our own wood and find it to be the most cost effective option for our needs. Many others in this area use wood as their primary heat source as well. Ending the ability to use firewood would put a great financial burden on us and others to install an alternate heating source and purchase the fuel to operate it. Please give careful consideration before making this change. Thank you. | ||
| Kevin Gardner | Incentivizing an implementation of allowing employees to telecommute could greatly reduce carbon emissions caused by automobiles. the past 2 years have proven that telecommuting can be successful for many businesses. This saves emissions from travel along with traffic congestion, the need to heat and maintain a common office space for the employees. This can also be helpful in reducing electric grid overload by taking large buildings off of the draw, and the need to charge EVs would be reduced as well if people were not required to commute as much. Understandably, not all work types can be performed remotely but a large number certainly can. If the plan would incentivize this option to employers it could help meet the goal of the plan. | ||
| George Ryan | Ryan’s farm | Heating with wood is the only heat I have it’s a way of life | |
| kevin gardner | I write as a lifelong citizen of NYS. I live in what most would consider a rural area of NYS, other than electricity, telephone and just recently added cable/internet, there are no utilities supplied to my home. The nearest underground residential gas supply is approximately 10 miles away. At the present time, myself and my neighbors rely on propane, oil delivery or electric to heat our homes. These same neighbors generally have some sort of backup system available to heat/cook in the event of a long duration power outages. It is not unrealistic for power to be lost for days at a time in areas like mine for many unavoidable reasons such as weather. What is unrealistic it the push for total dependance on the electrical grid for needed heat and cooking appliances for life sustenance. As I am not an opponent of clean energy and renewable resources, the reduction of emissions, etc an all out ban on using wood to heat and/or cook is excessive. Since the beginning of the human race we have been relying on wood to heat and cook on. Bringing a ban on the use of this would threaten the lives of New Yorkers in the coldest months, during the hardest weather events. Wood is one of the most renewable resources and for many their warmth in the winter months depends on it for both financial reasons as well as reasons already mentioned. People will freeze, homes will be lost due to frozen pipes, not if the grid fails, when the grid fails. Historically it has been proven the grid fails In 2003 a software bug was responsible for a massive blackout leaving 45 million customers without power for up to 4 days in some parts, in the areas with the coldest climate, luckily it was August. Think if this event occurred in the middle of winter, in the coldest area of the country, and all 45 million peoples homes were fully dependent on the electrical grid, think of the loss of life. You can also look at the 1998 Ice Storm in NY's North Country. Please consider. | ||
| Todd McKnight | USMC vet | You’re not going to stop me or any other Upstate New Yorker from burning wood, or driving gas and diesel trucks, atvs, boats, chainsaws, snowmobiles, tractors. Quit messing with the voting laws too, you cheating twatwaffles. We the People of New York, already voted all those amendments DOWN in Nov., Now y’all going to try push it through anyway?? Lol cruisin’ for a bruisin’ keep pushing, see what happens. | |
| Abcde Xxxxxx | We have been heating with electricity and wood for over 20 years. Wood stoves have become very efficient and the farming of wood helps to manage and maintain forests ( we have over 100 acres) , clean out debris that would be hazardous to fires, allows for and inexpensive way to heat homes and provide exercise for those that partake.Putting a ban on wood burning goes against the use of renewable heat sources and will wreck havoc on those needing a cheaper source of fuel to heat their homes. Banning all wood burning goes against all aspects of individual choice and should be implemented only for large industry. A better solution would be to require more efficient wood stoves as people go to replace current ones. | ||
| Kevin Gardner | I write as a lifelong citizen of NYS. I live in what most would consider a rural area of NYS, other than electricity, telephone and just recently added cable/internet, there are no utilities supplied to my home. The nearest underground residential gas supply is approximately 10 miles away. At the present time, myself and my neighbors rely on propane, oil delivery or electric to heat our homes. These same neighbors generally have some sort of backup system available to heat/cook in the event of a long duration power outages. It is not unrealistic for power to be lost for days at a time in areas like mine for many unavoidable reasons such as weather. What is unrealistic it the push for total dependance on the electrical grid for needed heat and cooking appliances for life sustenance. As I am not an opponent of clean energy and renewable resources, the reduction of emissions, etc an all out ban on using wood to heat and/or cook is excessive. Since the beginning of the human race we have been relying on wood to heat and cook on. Bringing a ban on the use of this would threaten the lives of New Yorkers in the coldest months, during the hardest weather events. Wood is one of the most renewable resources and for many their warmth in the winter months depends on it for both financial reasons as well as reasons already mentioned. People will freeze, homes will be lost due to frozen pipes, not if the grid fails, when the grid fails. Historically it has been proven the grid fails In 2003 a software bug was responsible for a massive blackout leaving 45 million customers without power for up to 4 days in some parts, in the areas with the coldest climate, luckily it was August. Think if this event occurred in the middle of winter, in the coldest area of the country, and all 45 million peoples homes were fully dependent on the electrical grid, think of the loss of life. You can also look at the 1998 Ice Storm in NY's North Country. Please consider. | ||
| Jamie bush | This idea to stop wood burning is absurd ,it's natures natural way of heat . I think natural gas ,propane ,oil ,coal ,is 10 times worse. | ||
| Michael Taylor | Not even sure where to start here. The plans are more than over-ambitious, it's complete lunacy. There is no magically clean renewable electricity in NYS. It's been overcast here in the Catskills literally 20 of the last 35 days. If 78% of our electric comes from fossil fuels today, we're not making any more hydro or nuclear. We have to somehow replace this 78% AND then make up for all the btu's of energy from all natural gas, #2 heating oil, kerosene, propane gas, diesel fuel (on and off-road) and gasoline - and replace it with CLEAN renewable electricity? And you expect to do this AFFORDABLY? This doesn't exist and zero shot we'll ever be able to achieve even a slight percentage without huge costs to the residents / taxpayers / businesses inside NYS. When NY emits less than 1/2 of 1% of the world's carbon emissions - why are we looking to destroy our economy inside the state? NY and the USA in general have come a long way in the last 20 years with cleaner emissions, technology will catch up in time but presently and by 2030, 35, 40 -- it won't be here. You can't simply say "no more fossil fuels" and we'll force you to go to electric everything and then make us believe that electric will be from "clean, renewable sources". It doesn't exist and NYS has some of the highest electrical costs in the USA. In addition, our grid is down constantly and to be more reliant on electricity? NYS lost over 350k people in the last year or 1.6% of it's population. We have some of the highest property & income taxes in the USA. We're over burdened with regulations and taxation. This will further to increase that exodus from New York at a faster rate as energy costs will crush consumers & businesses finances. A huge percentage of everyone's budget will be going towards "energy". NYers will vote with their feet. The ones that CAN AFFORD to leave - will. Please stop this. | ||
| David Bestys | Do NOT ban woodstoves and fireplaces. | ||
| John Saeli | Outlawing firewood burning would be a great mistake, not to mention a mass overreach of the government. Most of the people who burn firewood do not do it out of nostalgia, or fun, but out of necessity. I am a prime example of this. My family saves roughly $3,500-$4000+ a year with firewood. In our case, this amount of money is able to help offset the costs of living in a great way. New York already has a heavy hand on its citizens, please let off some! Our climate is a dear thing. Our duty to be a steward of our land is a Divine command set forth by God in Eden. What we have here is government involved in the religion of Climate Change, and forcing all its citizens to bend the knee or else punishment will ensue. Sounds like something of the Dark Ages. What is proposed here is not good stewardship. Good stewardship involves common sense practices that give humanity the priority, and respect to the environment. That is not outlined here at all. Let the free market deal with climate issues. The government will be pleasantly surprised by how much the citizens can do on a personal level to limit the negative impacts we have on our environment. Keeping the environment healthy involves individual involvement not a broad stroke of disconnected politicians. I do my part in preserving the environment around me in different ways from the next guy. The solution to this alleged problem is as complex as the environment and the citizens are. Think of a better way, this is only going to add harm and despair to the citizens the government is obligated to protect and enable to live their lives freely without the interference of the government. | ||
| Ken Lenny | Climate Activist | As an Activist on Climate Change I want to express a few comments on this platform. As you all know if you did legit research, climate change is not be caused by man. If fact change has been happening since the beginning of the earth. I encourage your board members to read literature and books of real scientists who are being silenced by big government because they proof that what ever change occurs can’t by proven if it’s Mother Earth or Man made. Your laws will only hurt the citizens of New York. Remember that a lot of New Yorkers left last year and will continue to flood to Florida if you impose these ridiculous and unproven claims of the climate killing us. Weaponizing the weather is an old trick that the Romans used to scare of their enemies thousands of years ago. Remember the saying “the sky is fallingâ€. Well that was from the Romans climate scare program. The same thing is happening today with liberals and uninformed citizens about a earth none of us can control with or without emission restrictions. So get off your high horse and don’t make anymore high costing mistakes on emission laws. | |
| Holly Magee | I checked all the boxes because normal people don’t have time to read an 861 page bill of nonsense. The main issue with this entire bill is the wood heat obviously. Who are you to tell people how they can heat they’re homes first of all! Also did you even think about power outages in the middle of winter? Do you want us all to freeze to death in this scenario?? Second issue is with the gas stoves do you really think everyone can afford to go buy a new electric stove and require they’re houses? Furthermore this will put all wood-stove small businesses in NY out of business. You people are going a little overboard with all of this. I mean first plastic bags, then styrofoam, and now wood heat and gas stoves what are you crazies going to try to control next - my hair color??? I’m also curious what the fines will be for those that don’t comply because I’m pretty sure you will find a lot of people in upstate NY that will do in anyways. Just saying. So please enlighten us with your brilliant responses because we can already see how nimrods think! They create stupid bills prior to thinking of the outcome. | ||
| Jennifer Roshong | Upstate New Yorkers like myself are NOT ok with any of your plans to limit or stop the use of fire wood for heating purposes. This is absurd! | ||
| Jill M Phillips | Wood burning for home have been around generations I think wood burning is the least problem with the emissions problem. People depend on the wood business | ||
| Alia Ansuini | We should be allowed to cut down trees without having to report it to the government. This is yet another one of our freedoms being taken away. We all share the land snd it’s resources and this way it feels the government owns our resources and is telling US what to do with them. I strongly encourage that this law doesn’t go into affect on behalf of our freedom to do as we please without the government interfering all the time. Thank you. | ||
| Adam McCormick | What about people who use wood as a primary heat source? It is much more affordable than propane in remote areas. I am able to use wood from my own property and cut and split it myself, other than alittle gas for my chainsaw, it is just my time. I do not have natural gas lines accessible, so propane is delivered for my backup furnace. But to heat with propane as my primary source would create a major economic hardship. Is the state going to pay for my gas for the next 50 years? and the upgrade to the gas system? My wood doesnt change price when natural gas and propane does. I understand the environment, I get it but banning my wood furnace places me in a bad position. Could we put more effort into stopping raging forest fires in the southwest that burns entire counties and large parts of entire states? seems that would do more to cut pollution than the ban of wood furnaces. Thank you. | ||
| Barbara Hawley | I have been hearing about the state possibly banning wood burning. This is an idea that would harm many people in my area, who rely on wood to heat their homes | ||
| Jennifer Steve | If you are to take away using firewood for heat in our homes you leave us in a very terrifying thought our power goes out in the winter quite often and we have floods in the winter to were using power has to be shut off we need to be able to heat our homes . It can get -10 as a high temperature in the winter no solar energy or wind power is guaranteed any more than power stations are not to mention the cost of having to use electric heat or propane its triple what people use on wood | ||
| Dawn Serafini | The leadership in this state is doing a terrific job at destroying it for sure. The elite politician's care absolutely nothing about the people that live here. And another perfect example is this ridiculous bill to make wood burning illegal. Many people heat their homes with wood or supplement with it. The state of New York will just be putting another nail in the coffin of the everyone who lives here. I vehemently oppose this bill. | ||
| Jeremiah Laymon | Do u people have any idea of how many people depend on wood for heat and even to cook with wood in upstate ny . Maybe if they want to cut emissions and greenhouse house gas look at NYC. We survive alot different up here just cause California does sumthing don't mean NY has got to follow its the biggest b----- I ever heard of. Maybe they need to fire everyone in the government and down in DC start over this country is in serious trouble. Someone needs to open there eyes before it's to late. I'm afraid that's not an option. If the people just keep bending over n yes to anything the government wants or state governors this country will be just like Russia. Time to stand up for what the people want not what u people want or think should happen. | ||
| Melissa Spencer | Before considering banning wood burning stoves or fireplaces, please remember that for many rural New Yorkers this is a primary source of home heating. Also, many of these families cannot afford converting to a different heating system. | ||
| Austin Luczak | Northeastern Chimney | Passing this bill and banning all wood burning appliances will harm business and industry all across the state | |
| Joe Shear | Northeastern fireplace & chimney | I’m a local buisness for 30 years in the fireplace and chimney buisness with over 20 employees . We also have a retail showroom EPA has modified the emmisions I’m 2020 for all wood burning appliances with strict emissions most wood stoves out of less grams per hr tha. A cigarette . This state is mostly rural and Woodburning has been a way of life and need for homeowners to heat ther how. With inflated oil and gas ,. What is New York thinking ? | |
| John Steele | Na | I am very concerned that NYS is even considering legislation against the burning of wood for home heating. All this will do is cause added cost to an already overtaxed and financially over burdened population in NYS. | |
| Tyler Foster | Throughout my entire life my family has relied on burning wood as an affordable way to heat our house without spending absurd amounts of money to purchase fuel-oil or natural gas. If you plan on banning or phasing out wood burning furnaces for people that live in upstate New York, how will we be able to afford these alternative sources of heat without breaking the bank? Unless there is already infrastructure in place that will allow us to utilize electric, fuel-oil, or natural gas, this plan will make many families go broke or be forced into non-compliance. I understand that you want to make New York become carbon neutral by 2050, however I believe that there is an absurd lack of infrastructure to achieve this goal so quickly. With inflation at an all time high and the world still in the middle of a pandemic, I believe that banning wood burning stoves should be at the bottom of your list for immediate correction. Perhaps installation of solar panels readily available for those who wish it to help cover the electricity bills when you want us to convert to that for heating. There are many other things to be considerate of as well. Such as the waste that comes with wind power, or the cold of winter that makes electric power non reliable. I know my comment is a drop in the bucket for you, but I sincerely hope that this reaches someone with authority to voice my concern about these sudden changes. Reach out to me at [email protected] thank you. | ||
| Richard Kopp | I applaud the efforts of the authors of the Draft Scoping Plan. I encourage the leaders of New York State to be bold in their efforts to mitigate climate change. I want New York State to be WORLD leaders in the fight against climate change, not just national leaders. California has been leading the US in many areas of energy efficiency, and I think we should strive to beat them. California should be adopting standards developed in New York, not the other way around. Other countries in the world are leaving the USA behind in renewable technologies and we should strive to beat them too. We have the brains and the resources right here in New York to be THE world leaders in efforts to mitigate climate change. Work to educate all New Yorkers about the benefits of renewable energy so we all work towards establishing ourselves as the world leaders in renewable energy and energy conservation. | ||
| Nicole Gabree | Upstaters won't give up their woodstoves, the security and independence they provide from a grid that will always put rural users on bottom priority is invaluable. Giving people opportunities to utilize them less could be incredibly effective, attempting to take them from people will be nothing but problems that will make people distrust and resist ANY climate plans from the state. | ||
| Ethan Genier | Cart before the horse. You can't begin to purpose that New York switch from gas stoves and move to electric heat and electric cars, and then also begin shutting down nuclear power plants while building natural gas plants. Not only will this not provide the power needed but why would I want to switch to electric heat when the state is switching to gas power generation. Slow down, do things in the correct order. Nuclear may be the only option of "green" power that can support the wants and needs of the green movement. | ||
| Bill Glitch | Trying to limit or out wood stoves etc to reduce carbon output in upstate "to protect us" is ridiculous. | ||
| Andrew Neary | While reducing carbon emissions is important, a ban on private wood burning (fireplaces / fire pits) in private homes is unlikely to have any substantial effect on carbon emissions compared to larger producers of green house gasses. Please don’t consider removing a relatively harmless source of enjoyment for many residents when there are more effective measures to pursue. | ||
| Katherine Freitag | The idea of ending burning wood makes no sense. Forcing homeowners to heat their homes with electricity is ludicrous. Carbon emissions are still generated in the production of electricity, especially now that nuclear energy has been shut down across the State. Another huge mistake on the part of NYS. What happens when storms hit and people are without power for days? Who pays to repair broken pipes? If people had fireplaces they could keep their homes warm and liveable. Who will pay the cost of transitioning to alternative sources. I know full well I can't. | ||
| Michael H Hay | Retired | The climate crisis is a fraud! Any reasonable person that can research it knows that it’s a fraud. | |
| Theresa Clarke | Separate nyc from the rest of NY, what might be ok for one its not for rural NY, solar power heats up the land, wind messes with the wild life and atmosphere, you want to go electric but the system can not handle it, out here its just plain stupid we can not rely on electric, you can't keep up with regular disposal how are you going to add thousands of batteries. There are thousand s of factories that let off more emission than wood, | ||
| M. Jaquith | |||
| Nancy L. Bornemann | People depend on wood stoves for heat or when electrical power fails. My family has depended on a wood stove or fireplace when lacking power. Think of two children and an infant cuddled by a fireplace for hours or days by a wood stove for heat and cooking. Solar is useless under harsh (no sun) conditions. You are out of touch with reality and people! | ||
| Henry Jodry | Many people like myself rely on our wood burning stoves to heat our homes. The wood for my wood burning stove is harvested from my property, thus saving me money. I also get great satisfaction for being self reliant. Most importantly when we lose electrical power unfortunately too often, l have that security for my home and family that my wood burning stove will provide heat especially in the cold weather. | ||
| Dominick Piacquadio | Many people rely on burning wood for heat. It is a renewable resource and is less expensive than relying on fossil fuels. The emissions can be relatively low if burned responsibly. There is no reason for the state to overreach into people’s lives and further regulate this more than the EPA has already done. There are sensible regulations at the federal level that set standards for emissions already. Pushing people away from wood and to burning fossil fuels makes zero sense and does not benefit the environment when looking at the big picture. Stay out of our day to day lives and let people make their own decisions. What makes sense for New York City doesn’t make sense for us here in upstate New York. Please do not act like it does and regulate us based on what works down there. We have a renewable and plentiful resource up here and can last for many generations if used responsibly. It is actually better for the environment than using electricity or fossil fuels for heat on the scale it is used in upstate New York. | ||
| Michael Zaretsky | In regards to Environmental issues; Solar Power has proven itself very useful to preserve the environment. However the relatively small tax grant provided to support the cost of installing it, actually does little to make it affordable. We need a yearly benefit; such as reducing taxes and other charges on our power bill. For example for my use of $75 of electricity I actually pay $225 do to the excess fees on my bill. One could get an annual tax deduction for having home solar. Additionally strip malls and larger factories/wear houses/ business often have very large flat roof space that should be required to be built with solar. We are wasting potential. School districts across the state should receive solar power and wind power grants to install these systems on these large open spaces. Yet we continue to destroy wooded areas to build more, without adequate regulations to give back to our communities. Making green options really affordable to everyone must happen. It also supports the development of much needed new jobs for all of us. Thank you Michael Zaretsky LCSWR 92 Hess Road Valley Cottage NY 10989 | ||
| David Meyer | |||
| Kenneth Gartler | |||
| Larry Carman | In a period where we are looking to reduce the use of fossil fuels we should be looking at alternatives. Renewable energy is definitely worth the investment. We should not be considering baning the use of wood and wood by products. A natural resource like wood is in the same category as solar and wind power and should be embraced as a very useful tool in our tool box. Plus like it or not we must balance the economy and climate. One can not take over the other. The use of wood burning stoves and pellet stoves is an excellent choice to heat our homes. Wood is a natural and plentiful resource in the United States. An entire industry revolves around these products and should not be discounted. We do not want wood to fall by the wayside as alternative fuels are sought. Wood should be considered a valuable resource. The coal and nuclear industries were treated as evil but we should look at the tools available to us and use them wisely. Same with oiil, put these options to work for us. We can explore outer space but can't find viable ways to use what we have. | ||
| Patty Anatole | Warren County and the Adirondack inhabitants have had a long standing relationship and dependence on timber. It is outrageous to consider a ban on wood burning in the home or on our land for heat or pleasure. Wood fire is the most basic human experience working with nature. The same can be said about cooking with fire. If you have an understanding of precision in the kitchen it is not achieved with electric stoves. Ask any chef if they would choose to cook in an electric stove over wood or for that matter natural gas or propane. China is going to continue in their merry way while Americans will be forced to completely change our lives. Over the top ridiculous!!! | ||
| Colleen Fleming | Find a different route, wood is a heat source for many so unless you plan to provide subsidies to all New Yorkers to offset electric bills and generators & gas to run them to all New York homes, especially those up north for when the electric goes out for days in the winter wood needs to stay Burnable. Look to make your reduction elsewhere or you'll run more residents out of the state. People are fleeing he state now just imagine what this would do. | ||
| James Payne | Umbrellaof | Wood is a renewable resource and the amount of emissions is relatively small in comparison to other emissions. If wood is not harvested the danger of large forrest fires becomes a greater damage to our environment especially if houses and plastics catch fire. STUDIES OF ROTTING WOOD have also determined it emits much more harmful carbons than other products. The idea of restricting wood burning also effects the poorest members of our society who utilize it for fuel. PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR INITIATIVE AS YOU WORK TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. | |
| Stephanie Salyer | I think limiting changing how people use wood and wood burning stoves and furnaces in upstate New York would greatly and negatively affect people's quality of life. Many many homes north of Albany rely upon these resources to heat and cook for thier families. Even new homes have these valuable things. North of Albany most people don't care about air pollution caused by fires/furnaces etc. Yet this will probably be ignored because the population of NYC skews public opinion - even though there's a majority in Saratoga and Schenectady counties polar opposite of nyc's huge boroughs. This is just my 2 cents. I would rather see the politicians trying to get more jobs and places back fully open instead of worrying about pollution. If you were really concerned about quality of life, you would fund the libraries better, and require them to fully open. Thanks. | ||
| Tyson Roggie | By the year 2050 there will probably won’t be anyone living in NYS so it should be easy to reach your climate goals. | ||
| Michael Charland | I am opposed to any limitation or restriction against residential firewood burning for heating or outdoor recreational enjoyment. My family manages our forest's health and wildfire prevention by cleaning up dead or diseased trees. We use that material to supplement our home's heating needs in the winter. Wood is a renewable natural resource. Thank you. Mike Charland Webster, NY | ||
| SCOTT McKim | please dont consider banning burning of wood. For many it is essentially net zero, being harvested locally & burned locally | ||
| brenda giacchino | If electric was more affordable to consumer th a natural gas, more people would switch. | ||
| Sharon Butler | I agree with reducing carbons in the air but how about a ban or at least reduction on bulldozing trees to build more of what we already have to much of?? There are plenty of houses,apartments,stores, large buildings etc that are vacant What happens with people in remote areas that depend on warmth in the winter by burning wood? Changing everything to electric isn’t feasible or practical because people can’t afford to convert their homes to all electric. What happens when there’s power outages for days or even weeks? Are people (especially the elderly) supposed to freeze?? I believe that if trees weren’t bulldozed down on every piece of vacant land that in itself would reduce gases in the air. Trees filter out a lot of pollutants How about just stopping or reducing the unnecessary clearing out of trees? That would help the environment tremendously - | ||
| Samantha Wankasky | N/A | ||
| Kevin Staufenberg | Self | ||
| Kevin Hoover | I have No idea what firewood burning in NY, would be under for a topic. I do know that THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!!!!!!! YOU MUST BE JOKING TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T BURN FIRE WOOD IN "THEIR" FIREPLACE.....OR WHILE CAMPING AT NYS PARKS!!!! WHAT THE H--- IS WRONG WITH THIS STATE, THIS IS JUST 1 MORE SMALL REASON YOU'RE DRIVING EVERYONE OUT | ||
| Thomas Wilsey | Some residents in New York State are so poor in upstate wood is all they have to heat their home, and you want to save the State by not burning wood? Let's start with putting criminals back in jail and keeping them there before we do anything. Residents are leaving here due to your inability to provide a safe environment for families to live in. The taxes are so high New York will be California before long, crime ridden and millions on welfare. Let's stop with the stupidity like the save plastic and recycle, where did that go oh that's right to paper. Save the trees, kill the trees. You folks need to really check yourselves on what is important. Safety, Jobs, low taxes always has been and always will be what's the most important. Unless the entire world does their part we will spin our wheels as in all the past mandates to save the world in New York. When you get residents flocking to live in New York then you call me and I'll be glad to give you more valuable information as the current ones will never work. | ||
| Thomas Wilsey | Some residents in New York State are so poor in upstate wood is all they have to heat their home, and you want to save the State by not burning wood? Let's start with putting criminals back in jail and keeping them there before we do anything. Residents are leaving here due to your inability to provide a safe environment for families to live in. The taxes are so high New York will be California before long, crime ridden and millions on welfare. Let's stop with the stupidity like the save plastic and recycle, where did that go oh that's right to paper. Save the trees, kill the trees. You folks need to really check yourselves on what is important. Safety, Jobs, low taxes always has been and always will be what's the most important. Unless the entire world does their part we will spin our wheels as in all the past mandates to save the world in New York. When you get residents flocking to live in New York then you call me and I'll be glad to give you more valuable information as the current ones will never work. | ||
| Thomas Wilsey | Some residents in New York State are so poor in upstate wood is all they have to heat their home, and you want to save the State by not burning wood? Let's start with putting criminals back in jail and keeping them there before we do anything. Residents are leaving here due to your inability to provide a safe environment for families to live in. The taxes are so high New York will be California before long, crime ridden and millions on welfare. Let's stop with the stupidity like the save plastic and recycle, where did that go oh that's right to paper. Save the trees, kill the trees. You folks need to really check yourselves on what is important. Safety, Jobs, low taxes always has been and always will be what's the most important. Unless the entire world does their part we will spin our wheels as in all the past mandates to save the world in New York. When you get residents flocking to live in New York then you call me and I'll be glad to give you more valuable information as the current ones will never work. | ||
| Jeffrey Nasta | Our State and local officials seem to be more concerned about silly agendas than making good choices for their constituents. Rather than running the government, and making sure people can afford to live here, the Governnent is spending money it doesn't have on nonsense. Just recently the proposed construction of a new cleaner more efficient running power plant to be built in Astoria was denied by foolish progressives h--- bent on climate change agendas. Rather than building a new natural gas powered cogen HRSG, which would replace the need to run power plants built decades earlier which are highly inefficient. Fools are making the decisions that affect many people, there needs to be more common sense, as well as fiscal responsibility. | ||
| Zachary DiAngelo | Wood burning is an economically efficient and carbon neutral way for people to heat their homes especially in areas where the power grid is not reliable. It is a good use of tree tops left from logging that would otherwise be wasted and the carbon released anyway. As such wood burning should not be restricted or eliminated. | ||
| Tom Lorentz | Good evening, I have a couple of questions. To start with how exactly do you plan to limit ones travel? Next when it comes to methane emotions, again what are you planning control that, will there be a tax on the amount of livestock or the size of your farm? And has anyone looked into fuel cells cars like hydrogen? Unlike fossil fuel or lithium, which are both of limited supply and either have to be drilled or dug out of the ground and both impact the earth and the environment. Hydrogen fuel cells cars do neither of those and the exhaust is water, you can't get any cleaner than that. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Peter Densing | As a resident of Western New York, which resides far from both the land mass and values of New York City, please know that restrictions on burning wood, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and consequently reducing risk of climate change, are measures unfit for our state. People residing in cities may not be aware that people who live nearer the woods; these same people who often recreate in nature, often DO burn wood for fuel and for special occasions. While you may think it a fit target for reform, the effort is counterproductive, as those who burn wood for fuel are often homesteaders and like-minded conservationists. We should, perhaps, focus on other measures that don't cause hardship for those whose lives are most directly intertwined with NY's natural world. | ||
| Bub Jones | Do not try and stop people from burning wood to heat there homes. Most can't afford any other options for heating. | ||
| Robert Janik | Leave burning wood alone. Climate justice is a joke | ||
| Kevin Trombley | We recently installed a heat pump at our home. Living on the eastern shore line of Lake Ontario is brutal in the winter with high winds and lake effect snow. Unless you can guarantee that the power never goes out what is your realistic plan to encourage me not to fire up my wood stove. At times even with having a roaring fire it can get chilly. We have new windows, doors, fully insulated and have sealed every draft. With all the “scientists in the country can they not come up with ways to clean any fuel emissions rather than ban the fuel, can we not demand it from our business leaders and scientists to figure it out. | ||
| Elias Gootzeit | Legislative Assistant to the Mount Vernon City Council | What impact on recreational use... camping, outdoor cooking, ? What impact on cultural/business cooking traditions such BBQ, Caribbean Jerk cooking, carnivales etc.? What impact on wood harvesting for those activities? Are there cheap cleaner systems of wood burning that will respect the heritage livelihoods and availability of alternatives? | |
| Roger Caiazza | Retired | The integration analysis technical supplement abstract states that: Additional data are available for download at https://climate.ny.gov/: Annex 1. Techno-Economic Analysis Inputs and Assumptions Annex 2. Techno-Economic Analysis Key Drivers and Outputs Annex 3. Health Co-Benefits Analysis Supplemental Data This information is not clearly available at that web location as of 1/1/22. There are additional data in the resources section but the spreadsheets have not been updated since the middle of November. I suggest clarifying the availability for consistency with the supplement abstract on the web site and updating the analysis data. | |
| Renee Rein-McNeil | Enough with rules and regulations | ||
| Dennis Jones | I use a wood burning stove in the winter time to reduce my cost of propane to heat my house. Please don't stop the use of wood burning stoves in ny state. People will go cold in the winter months. | ||
| V Kolo | You liberals, with your climate change initiatives of banning wood burning and gas burning, are out of your minds. Liberalism is truly a disease of the mind. You suffocate everything with you laws, citizens, businesses. It is sickening. | ||
| n | Everyone can agree that we would all like the world to be better for everyone. I find that this plan requires a broader scope with less agenda pushing. Rather than emphasize "Clean fuels" reduction of consumerism in both energy consumption and other resources would have a larger impact. "Clean Energy" has a tendency to utilize heavy metal components (often mfg by forced labor/slave labor from other countries, lets not have history keep on repeating itself) such as lead acid/lithium batteries, solar panels in addition to having non robust control systems. Emphasis on reduction in resource consumption (such as what was implemented in the 1970's energy crisis) provides a more environmentally feasible and sustainable option that can universally be implemented (across corporations and individuals) and not target and discriminate against unique populations. Likewise, to reduce the greenhouse emissions additional focus should be directed to reducing/eliminating clear cutting forests and overdeveloping land (i.e. new land uses and construction should be limited and few as existing developed areas should be reevaluated for a further optimization of use). As established forests are an enormous moderating/controller of thermal variations and major reducer in greenhouse emissions , time and tax payers money should also be directed on what can be done to restore major forest programs. | ||
| Richard Peters | the Earth Wise Projects Group | “I†CAN HELP !!! AND, HERE’S HOW : Notes From the Mind Of : Richard Edward Peters, Jr. “[email protected]â€!!! [email protected] Telephone @/ (716) 338-7270 To Whom It Might Concern, “Things That “I†Could Accomplish†!!! Passive Energy : Sources, Systems, & Utilization Technologies : Note(s) - “Recycle, Reduce, Reuse†aka “Repurpose†!!! Repurpose - Offshore Oil Rig Platform Technologies Into Fresh Water Collection & Transportation Platforms (Ask Me How) ? Note(s) The “production†of Electricity can also be accomplished utilizing these technologies Residential (Full) Basement Foundations - Into - “Ground Based†Heating / Cooling Sources *** Note(s) - This Passive Energy Tech. can save the average homeowner 50 %, 75 % or more on Heating costs !!! And, up to 100 % on Cooling costs These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** These Tech.s use “No†moving parts *** Thus, “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements And, these Tech.s operate 24 hr.s day / 7 days wk. / 365 days yr. w/o fail !!! The average construction costs can be as low as $5,000.00 Plus per Residential Customer... “Far†below comparable Technology Costs *** i.e. “Finish Work†is not included !!! (Ask Me How) ? Residential South Facing Porches Into: Heat Producing, Heat Storing Greenhouse Additions These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** These Tech.s use “No†moving parts *** Thus, “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements (Ask Me How) ? Mini-Blind Technologies Into : Portable Thermosiphon Solar Collectors These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements (Ask Me How) ? “Insulated†Vacuum Panels *** aka An “R-100†Building &/or Container Insulation Alternative “Zer | |
| Eugene Graham | User of firewood | The bottom line is wood is a renewable asset. You can use to heat/forestry/clean the air/ help stop erosion /etc. People's need the cost of energy to be able for them to be able to afford to live. | |
| Steve Hos | I live in a rural area. Many rural home owners use wood as a heating source. You shouldn't legislate actions that would outlaw wood burners. That would create a significant financial burden for these families. Also, don't consider any laws taxing people on miles driven. Again, another financial burden for rural folk. There are other ways to cut green house emissions. If you are going to cut items from people's lives to combat climate change, there has to be an affordable replacement. For example, gas blowers, lawn mowers and trimmers. There is no electric/battery replacements that perform even close to the gas powered items. | ||
| David Walter | any limitations on wood heat should except masonry heaters AKA Russian or Finnish stoves that burn more than 80% clean either 80% great transfer efficiency https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/masonry-heaters-burn-hot-and-clean http://www.stovemason.com/masonr-heater-advantages/ | ||
| Peter Gasparini | Shera assoc llc | Stop giving us bs about climate change the world 🌎 turns and things change if ur going to change something change the corruption in the political world that will stop alot of waste and then u can have the funds for climate change also wood 🔥 is not the problem so stop bs the people | |
| Raymone Gibson | Raymone Gibson | I think it's really crazy about anyone can not burn wood in new York state , it's really silly and dumb period and I can't not wait till I get out of new York state! | |
| Tara Irish | I live in a rural county whet many people either hear their homes solely with wood or supplement due to the high cost of electricity and limited options for home heating. Banning the ability for rural residents to hear their hopes with wood would decimate rural families economically. I oppose any such legislation. The rural counties continue to be trapped by downstate politicians with no care for their way of life. The construction of wind and solar power without access to cheaper electric is a prime example. | ||
| Michael Van Lew | To whom it may concern, I'm writing to address my concerns with a possible decrease in the use of wood for residential heating. Burning seasoned (dried) wood at proper temperatures in an EPA certified stove is a necessity for many families who live in the more rural areas of NY. Wood stove's have what is called "Secondary Combustion", which means there are tubes inside the stove that inject oxygen which in turn allow the stove to reburn gasses released by the wood prior to it escaping out the chimney and into the air. While I understand the benefits and cleanliness of electrical power, relying solely on electricity hasn't proved beneficial to me. Recently a wind storm knocked out my power for 3 days and I had to use a gas generator to power my refrigerator so I wouldn't lose my food. In addition to that, I was able to use my wood stove to heat my entire house without being burdened by the fact that I was without power. If the load on the electrical grid is expected to increase, then why not look at Time Square and the megawatts of electricity consumed there? Instead of worrying about millions of dollars in advertising couldn't that power put to better use? Our officials tell the everyday consumer to adjust thermostats and monitor appliance usage during heavy demand periods, but those glowing billboards remain lit. I doubt that's been the focus of any discussion. Sincerely, Michael Van Lew | ||
| Ellen ReSue | Many of us can understand the need to reduce carbon emissions in heavily populated areas. So putting a moratorium on wood or coal burning for personal use in densely populated areas is reasonable. But here in upstate NY, the harvesting and burning of wood serves many purposes. It provides less expensive heating to many; cleans our woods of old and some useless woods which helps control the the chances of forest fires and encourages reforestation which improves our air quality. Besides creating a great exercise regimen to improve the health of rural New Yorkers. Also, outdoor wood heaters/boilers burn cleaner than most indoor stoves because of the higher heat range they burn at, and most new stoves have some kind of catalyst system built in for burn efficiency. So we hope all this will be considered when imposing new and inconvenient laws on all the NY citizens. We're not all endangered by excessive emissions because we live in areas of the state where nature reigns Supreme! Thank you. | ||
| Connor Kerr | Leave me alone | ||
| Megan Denker | America | As far as I am aware, there is nothing in effect (yet) to ban the use of wood as a fuel source. In my opinion, this proposal seems a bit ridiculous and quite frankly, irrational. Wood has been used for millions of years as a means to heat and cook as well as numerous other jobs. Has in caused pollution? Probably; undoubtedly. Is it an affordable replacement for electricity and other fuel sources? Undoubtedly; undisputably. Admittedly, I've not poured over the information nor have I done any kind of serious research, but you cannot, with any amount of seriousness, ask a state that is primarily comprised of outdoorsmen, hunters, nature lovers, salt-of-the-earth people to eliminate woodburning from their lives. It is a staple for many of us. It is unrealistic and not practical in the slightest. Perhaps if the cost of fuel or electric was reasonable, it could be a viable option, but it isn't, so it's not. And please remember, New York is more than it's city. It's much more, with quite a few folks, including my family and I, who find this proposition nothing short of laughable. Environmental safety is important, no doubt, but keeping the tax paying constituents of this beautiful state happy and well adjusted is just as important. In my humble opinion. | |
| Frank Mancuso | EER | If we were truly serious about climate change we would seriously address the #1 cause of it, the dying oceans. Before spending trillions on solar, wind and lithium we better consider the CO2 cycle engine, phytoplankton. Now half gone in my lifetime because of PCB laced micro-plastic. As phytoplankton goes all life will soon follow. | |
| Art Brucker | You can take your failed non existing plan and light it on fire. Global warming is nothing but a way for you idiots to force more regulations on us that we don’t want or need. You people think you are going to make any changes that will actually make a difference, your dillisional.. Keep it up and I will be moving out of New York just like the millions before me. You people are ruining this state!!!! | ||
| Karen Muncey | Many homes are heated with wood in upstate New York. Many individuals use wood for cooking food, so it is safe to eat. Banning the Burning of wood would result in increased homes with no heat, eating of uncooked food, poverty and poor health. Many individuals upstate use ATVs, snowmobiles , Dirt Bikes, etc. required to travel to school, work, and shopping, etc. as a result of poor roadway development of the New York State and Local government roadways. The New York State past a law, so that towns no longer have to improve roadways, of there roads for new and existing homes. Many individuals upstate live on public roads, that are not maintain year-round, and not cleared of snow in the winter. Many of these homes do not have electricity, or public water, and the roads can not support delivery of heating fuel, or the installation of electric power and water, so tens of thousands New York individuals and their families only have one way to heat and cook, and making water safe to drink, and that is burning wood, and to get food and wood, is to drive off road vehicles that run on gasoline and or gasoline and oil. If you where in the middle of Manhattan, you have a better chance of running everything off electric power vs upstate New York, where you have very little to none. This | ||
| Daniel Wrobel | I believe you're doing the right thing in limiting carbon emissions. Heating home strictly with wood is dangerous. But I do believe that we should be able to supplement out home Heating with wood. Making outdoor wood fires illegal could help the situation as lots of people burn trash and wood byproducts, formica wood laminates etc, all of which produce toxic gas. Campfires in campgrounds might be excluded if you get to much feedback. | ||
| Lou McMull | Our only source of heat is our wood burning stove and my parents only source is a pellet stove. How are we supposed to heat our homes? We do it as responsibly as possible. Who will help us convert our homes to gas? Also on your list...and electric will be too. How are we supposed to survive a NY winter? | ||
| Cynthia Yonker | Hello, I enjoy sitting outside my home during a beautiful summer night... In front of my firepit...during this time its relaxing and I can let my worries go away...pls don't take that away from people who may have only have that time to be outside because of health reasons and Covid. | ||
| Elizabeth Lipker | When it comes to these green initiatives, I think the most difficult thing for me is the cost and the impact on rural, small town, middle and lower class folks. Electric is expensive, and I’m worried these transitions aren’t keeping in mind reality. New York is barely livable with taxes - I feel like these may only make New York more expensive to live in. While it says certain things are only for new builds, I know there’s also the section about transitioning existing homes and offering loans for homeowners. That’s not helpful. | ||
| Jesse Utsett | Ny banning firewood would be very harmful to it's rural communities. I have worked in the heating business for almost 20 years and there's alot of families that can't afford to pay the ever increasing cost of heating oil/propane/natural gas. NY state is already one of the most expensive states to live in and firewood gives people a chance to heat on a budget. This bill would affect the low income rural communities disproportionately and would contribute to the already large exodus from the state that's going on already. | ||
| Michael A Grygus | Hello, I ask that you please consider banning outdoor propane heaters. Although a small % of CO2 emissions, they are a wasteful and impractical use of fossil fuels (vs burning a renewable resource like wood to heat a home that is critical and affordable for many people). Thank you, Mike Grygus | ||
| Steve Bowman | Corporate America needs to quit shoving all this change down everyone's throat before they can make electric affordable and feasible instead let's monopolize the whole electrical system then tax it to the sky so the Corporate oligarchy gets rich and myself and other working people get screwed over | ||
| Joe Klein | Investments in emerging green technologies such as green hydrogen to promote jobs and technological leadership in these areas utilizing the SUNY System. Support small scale solar and wind and begin investment in charging stations for electric vehicles. | ||
| Phil Fortin | Please stop regulating absolutely everything! You're not going to have anyone left to regulate for if you start banning or reducing things like burning fire wood, etc. The language regarding "firewood reduction" by 2050 is pretty concerning. Come on! Enough of this. People are already leaving the state in droves! Let us taxpayers have something! Nobody will go camping if they can't burn firewood or enjoy a good campfire, let alone heat their homes the way they'd like. At what point is enough, enough?! | ||
| Gerald Possai | I oppose and DO not agree with any proposals that will limit the use of burning wood, selling wood stoves along with potential to stop the sale of ATVs New York State. This includes laws that will not allow for natural gas hookup on new buildings. This is over reach by the liberal members of NYS. This will do little to impact climate change, since emissions have been reduced by 17 percent since 2004 anyways. If these liberals have such a problem with the current environment why do they not go help the major world pollution countries like China, Russia and India, I am sure these countries need their help more then we do!! | ||
| Christine Gardner | My home is in a rural town which I love. My neighbors burn paper and wood. Being a severe asthmatic, the smoke flares up my asthma. This carbon it bad for anyone to breathe in, let alone people with lung issues. During the summer I have to close my windows to eliminate the smoke. We need to pass laws to prohibit burning wood. | ||
| Carmela Spahn | There shouldn’t even be enforced a law to ban burning firewood since many households rely on their wood burning stoves for heating their house. Is the governor of NY state going to pay our heating bills if there will be such a law? Please reconsider this law as this may be a dire situation for many, many households. Thankyou | ||
| William Powell | Banning the burning of wood is a ridiculous action as its impact on climate change are nill compared to the burning of fossil fuels and petrochemical discharge. There are so many other issues in this state right now so much more important that I cannot believe that the banning of burning wood is even a consideration. Its very troubling when legislators are thinking so small picture. The concerns and work in state government should be focused on jobs, lowering high taxes and population attrition. Bringing in good paying jobs and incentives for businesses should be the focus. More jobs = income for families + population stability/ growth which results in more tax revenue which = stronger growth and economic progress for this state! Bottom line! You need people to have a healthy growing economy! Thankyou for listening! | ||
| Celestine Lee | We like sitting around our fire pit in the eveand toasting marshmallows with our granddaughter. I think it is a minor contribution to green house gases. It isn't a bad practice (especially now during covid isolation). | ||
| Steven Wood | People have been burning wood since the beginning of time. Its a natural product. The emmissions from burning wood are nothing compared to the fossil fuel emmissions and destruction that the oil industry has done to our planet. What happens when the power goes out? Wood is a cheap and economical source of heat, cooking fuel, and a relaxing night by a campfire. I just cant believe that the people who are leading us, that we vote for, are sometimes so out of touch with the average person that lives and work in NYS. The people from the New York city area do not speak for the rest of the state. What happens in New York city, and its surrounding areas, does not happen upstate. Its a unique area. Do not ban wood burning, and while we are at it, get rid of the workzone speed cameras. Lets say what it really is, just another money grab, or tax. Cant you see. With all the intelligent people we have in NYS, we can not come up with reasonable ideas. We have enough laws. We have so many laws that the average person do not even know what they are anymore. Stop contributing to mass exodus of people from our great state. The political environment, and laws, which we have to live by, are destroying it from the inside out. Why do you think so many people are leaving? Its not rocket science, and if i can see this, cant you? | ||
| John Dragun | Dragun Signs | Any new law to limit ways to heat homes is a bad idea. I live in north country and great with wood. I cannot afford to heat with oil, which also gives of CO2 and would be banned. I am against anything stopping wood burning for heading out camp fires. | |
| Ethan Otero | Listen you guys seriously need to stop with this climate change s--- when india, and china are the two most contributing factors to greenhouse emissions not ny residents burning wood that's asinine if you want to help the environment transition to nuclear energy it's a safe clean energy source sure to the fact it's the only source that we can reuse the waste product and the energy it produces outcompete any other form of energy production, So please consider what I have to say and consider that our emissions have halfed since 2000 as apposed to india which nearly doubled. | ||
| Brandon Lundy | Look at Singapore and their waste management it seems to be far more advanced then we are. | ||
| Jennifer Sickles | It would be catastrophic for NYS to ban the burning of wood. I live in a rural community where people live paycheck to paycheck and heating with wood is the only way many families survive. The astronomical cost of heating oil and propane is financially destructive. Wood is a renewable resource that can be gotten free or cheap provided you work for it | ||
| Shawn Miller | I vote no to stopping the use of wood burning for home heating | ||
| Robin Homan | The potential threat to limit the ability to heat my home with wood from my land, feels as a threat to our freedom of how we use our land. If we were truly concerned with emission control, and not population control, we would have significant limitations on bovine products. Limiting emissions from the products that produce the most greenhouse gasses seems to be the most logical method, not attacking the poor. | ||
| Wade Warner | Do not ban wood burning stoves!! | ||
| Derek Millington | NY should adopt the same approach as Vermont and encourage efficient firewood burning devices, instead of potentially banning them. Efficient burning of firewood is a nearly carbon neutral heat source for hundreds of thousands of homes in New York state. Replacing an outdated oil boiler with a wood- gasification boiler or high efficiency wood stove reduces carbon emissions and creates many sustainable good paying jobs. Sure there are pros and cons to each situation, but deciding to ban a renewable resource way of heating a home or business doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Thanks | ||
| Dale Raymo | Governmentally Solutions | The government needs to stop making oppressive regulations on it’s citizens unless: 1) it can make the rules apply to all. By all I mean around the world, I believe that you are just stifling America’s ability to compete on the world stage which means that our carbon footprint will get lesser however other countries will have greater footprints and therefore the world is not going to be better off. 2) If all of the solar and wind power was ready for prime time it would not need all of the government money to do so. Capitalism will ultimately make it work if it can. 3) Don’t think that I’m against doing a better job of not polluting our world, so to get to the bottom line our government needs to understand its limits. Understand that we need to be pokes to always do better however if we can’t change the others in this world and until we can convince the rest of the world to do their part don’t cripple our country. Thanks Dale | |
| Peter Panse | While wood furnaces/boilers do emit smoke particulates, consider a few points: 1. When a thermostatically controlled (old style, non-recirculating) OWB turns on, the obvious “smoking emitting†aspect is fairly brief, as air is blown in via fan, which encourages the fire to become very hot. 2. The incidence of heavy smoke can be most obvious when starting a new fire, especially if the stove is overloaded. The user just needs to start small, and wait for the contents to become glowing coals. Then, add enough new wood to cover, and place this additional wood at right angles to the first, which avoids smothering the initial fire. When this first layer is covered with the second, wait until glowing, then load the firebox until near full. Showing photos of smoke billowing out of a boiler chimney stack is dramatic but, misleading. 3. Wood furnace emissions are different than than emissions from the same wood lying and rotting but bear in mind that both emit - the furnace just does so in a shorter, and more visually dramatic fashion. But, burned or rotting, both emit. 4. The people I know who heat with wood choose this method due to the cost saving versus electric or oil. It is a lot of work to load, feed and clean a wood furnace. Oil requires less labor, and electric even less. People who put in the work with wood do so out of necessity. 5. Wood harvesting allows light to reach the forest floor, encouraging an explosion of new green growth, which captures CO2, feeds and hides wildlife along with other benefits. 6. Leave the market to determine the most economical way to heat a home. Meanwhile, burning wood has its place. | ||
| Stephanie Mancuso | In an effort to go green, you have to think about the practically of the effort and its effect on real people. For example, banning the burning of wood as a heat source (among other energy bans) will devastate people financially. My family burns wood as a heating source not because we prefer it. In fact, it's a lot of work to cut and chop wood. And to keep the fire going continuously. It's messy in our home from wood debris that gets tracked in to what the soot does to my walls that I have to clean. We burn wood because we can't afford the cost of propane and/or natural gas (which we don't have access to anyway, given where we live). So we HAVE to supplement. Believe me, if we could afford it another way we would gladly do so. This state taxes the life out of its citizens to begin with and then on top of, puts measures in place that continue to degrade the value of their paychecks even more, financially suffocating them. Your efforts to lessen emissions have to be met with common sense and common decency. Getting rid of wood or gas, etc. in exchange for electricity (for example) begs the question: Are you really creating a better place or exchanging one problem for new ones? | ||
| Susan Panse | NYS farmers will be effected negatively and damage economy of state. The scope of the problem should include which fuel wood would be replaced with...and at what cost! | ||
| James Cummings | NYS should move quickly to hold manufacturers of single-use plastics accountable for end-of-life recovery and recycling & disposal of single-use plastics, or the remnants. | ||
| Joseph Gonzalez | In appendix B-12, it is calling for stopping the burning of trees. Land owners must burn trees, specifically stumps when clearing land. Sullivan County waste management does not accept tree waste. What are wee supposed to do, pay for private carting company to take it away? Wood heat is not just a pleasurable way of heating your home but also an economic necessity for many in this state. You reference gas utilities from making new connections to new buildings. But what do you consider a utility? Is propane suppliers included in this group. Without propane and without wood burning, heat pumps cannot supply the heat needed in homes in average January and February months in many mountain locations. That is why all heat pumps have an Auxillary Heat in the system and thermostats. While I agree in the notion of protecting the environment, I live in the woods, I love nature, your ideas require more research and some ideas need to be reevaluated. | ||
| Lloyd Edwards | Please keep in mind rural communities rely heavily on burning wood as their primary heat source. Downed trees in rural areas offer a cheap, efficient heat source for many low income residents. Banning that heat source would be a significant burden to them. Residents of an island would be greatly impacted since alternatives for heat are limited to electric, or propane. Propane requires access via landing craft, increasing costs even more. Although these plans are noble, they are likely to have detrimental affects on people upstate. Please don’t penalize and destroy a large group of rural New Yorkers who simply want to heat their homes affordable, to satisfy the noble ambitions of people who prefer to live in the City(ies) | ||
| Landon Cook | Many people in upstate burn wood, many using newer / more efficient wood burning stoves. Overall it is a small part of the energy usage in the state. Converting to another energy type, which still uses other energy sources, would be costly for many poorer New Yorkers. Further, many have invested thousands for burning wood efficiently recently. Such mandates like many things often may do more harm than good and foster resentment and frustration among the taxpaying / hard-working population. | ||
| kathleen severino | Until there are no longer any homes burning oil or gas cars on the road leave the wood alone. The snow doesn't turn black in the winter from wood stoves. You need to see what are the biggest emission offenders and see what can be done to lower those emissions., not the low hanging fruit. Thank You | ||
| Phillip Ziegler | Impeach Joe Biden and put TRUMP back in office. Get ride of NY states unvoted in governor hochal she's no good either. AMERICA was better without a Democrat in office period. | ||
| Edward Wilkes | |||
| Loiui Lkjfdth | I didn't leave my real information. But how about thinking about outlawing diesel vehicles being deleted of emissions devices. I work in an automotive dealership, and this is a common thing in Upstate NY. | ||
| Gary Bennett | I think it’s a very bad idea because people burn wood in the winter to heat their homes and if it’s banned what are they going to heat with when fuel oil and propane prices are through the roof | ||
| Douglas Felser | I do not support a ban on burning wood as it would be an unnecessary burden on the poor who for the most part only use wood as a backup source of heat during the winter months . The DEC should instead concentrate their efforts on those that burn garbage. I have several neighbors who burn plastic, tires, batteries oil and other chemicals. That could be easily recycled or disposed of in a responsible manner. Even in the poorest counties of New York state people are moving away from oil and coal as heat sources. However, the ability to burn wood as a source of heat is necessary . There are much worse sources of pollution that the state should concentrate on. Those who burn wood and use it for other purposes are more likely to plant trees to replace that resource as well. | ||
| Johnathon Kemp | Research masonary wood stoves and also Rocket stoves for in home use if people still wish to burn wood. A masonary wood stove and Rocket stove only needed to be fired once to twice a day with very minimal wood usage. Their designs allow heat to be stored into their stone/earth mass which is more efficient than a wood stove, fire place, furance or outdoor boiler. Also due to burning wood at an extreme high heat as the fume emissions exit they dual combust also the high temperatures creates little to no creosote which is safer. Another feature is due to the mass you are able to touch them with out being burned. I suggest that is these type of stoves get promoted to the public so they have a better understanding of them and their efficiency. To be able to load one of these heating sources let's say twice a day with twigs and kilning(small) size wood pieces to heat a home verses burning several big chunks of wood to just turn around and refill every few hours makes a huge difference. Look at it as the average home needs depending on normal stove any where from 10 cord to 30 or more cord of wood to burn where a Masonary Wood stove or Rocket stove only would use half the amount if even less then that. Please promote or offer incentives for Masonary Stoves and/or Rocket Heaters for home use. Upstate families are to poor to take on more bills specially now as prices of everything has gone up during this pandemic and there's no relief in sight. | ||
| Frank Martino | Sir Ma'm We the people will have a opportunity to meet multiple goals when the control of emissions plan initiated by former President Obama is planned. We can improve the quality of our air and reduce our dependency on non renewable fuel. This can be achieved by encouraging the use of renewable fuels for energy | ||
| Donelle Adamczyk | If you are no longer going to let families burn wood to heat their homes then you are going to need to install natural gas lines or else we will go broke heating our homes with propane! | ||
| Scott Stebbins | This proposal of vitually eliminating greenhouse gas overnight while burdoning New Yorker's even more during "these" ridiculous times is absurd. What exactly is the plan long term, and small changes over time? In a world of make believe you may snap your fingers and everything will be wonderful. What thought and planning is behind the implementation of this other than it was Barrack Obama's plan. What is the current plan at that level to curtail other high emission Country's would be more at that level if this were truly what its all about. For the record I oppose anything coming out of NY leadership, and I mean that hypothetically because there hasn't been any of that in many years. It's about time for NYers to gain relief from a whole new bunch of leadership that represent the people of NY and not the elite. | ||
| Joshua Pfuelb | Wood burning is a cherished tradition and is a renewable resource. To remove the ability of one to heat their own house by the sweat of your brow is un American it is to tread on ones American dream of freedom and autonomy. | ||
| Daniel Garris | I would like to see fallen timber cleaned up in the waterways and high fire risk areas. The benefit to heating with wood far outweighs the carbon footprint. The focus needs to be in forest fire reduction and the criminal elements that set fires as a means of protesting need to be eliminated. | ||
| John Smith | I believe new york is on a path that leaves the middle class in a no win situation due to our leaders in albany. The technology is not up to speed with the democrats climate policies and the middle xlass will suffer the consequences of it.futhur more our justice system has failed new york with bail reform letting criminals out of custody and return to the public to conmit the same crimes with no punishment,not to mention that upstate new york will pay the price with the (green new deal) tactics they are pushing forward,upstate cannot pay the price of what leaders in albany think are right while our bridges are on the verge of collapse and infrastructure is in shambles while we gove immigrants good tax money instead of investing in the state.No wonder new yorks population is decreasing in steady numbers, if we dont change things new york will fall into itself and perish WAKE UP AMERICA | ||
| Christian Huebner | Your plan is over reaching and accomplishes nothing but adding unnecessary expense to middle and lower class citizens just to make certain groups feel better about themselves. You want to achieve climate justice, dont touch a thing involving transportation. | ||
| V N | Do you realize what a joke it is to say no more burning wood. Are you going to have people going door to door removing wood stoves and fireplaces and reimbursing those folks who you've created a construction project to repair the hole in the wall you'd build. Not everyone outside of the citys (which I'm sure you all love) have capability to get access to electric heat, propane or natural gas heat. Do you folks even realize that all of these heating sources are exponentially higher than burning wood. Do you also realize new stoves have catalytic converters on it to re-burn the smoke so to speak to decrease emissions. And if you want to ban burning wood, will we turn into California and all the western states with wildfires due to unmanaged brush and downed trees? How about instead of banning something for the heck of it, you come up with a better plan for all of us that don't have access to the city type heat sources and we want to stay that way, away from the cities, away from the chaos and unclean air Tha you see in every major city. How about you stop running subways and the heat and air in the cities that cause worse emissions than a few dispersed wood stoves. If you honestly think people are going to switch to electric just because you say so. Thunk again. Look at the EV sales, not very widespread in nys. And while we're at it, can you explain why an EV is better than gas, when the EV batteries once dead have no safe way of disposing them, and oh yeah are combustible at random times. Oh and the fact that it creates more emissions to make one of those batteries than the life of a gasoline car, is laughable on its own accord. How about you stay out of our lives and we'll stay out of yours. Just another sign of overreach! | ||
| Jim Jazwiecki | Climate change is a joke, a big lie, waste of time. Stick it up your tree hugging asshole | ||
| richard obrien | |||
| Christina Beck | The electric goes out at least once every week or 2 due to fallen lines from trees falling. In winter without backup and not being able to use a generator we would have frozen water lines, spoiled food and freeze. We live in a small village where we have been the last to see a repair truck to fix problems. During Sandy we were without power for 12 days!! So what would you expect us to do freeze to death? | ||
| Jeffrey Granowski | If you are serious about decarbonization without bankrupting the citizens of NY with exorbitant utility bills, you will build clean safe nuclear energy facilities. Using wind and solar which is inefficient in the gloomy winter months is not the intelligent way of achieving your climate goals and you know it. But go ahead and stop people from burning wood in their stoves during winter so we can have a massive voter turnout to push you environmental extremists into the dustbin of history. The actions you take will be negated by countries like China and India increasing their fossil fuel usage a thousand fold. But hey, we will have a sterile welfare State. | ||
| Gordon Betts | Having read sections of this proposal, as I'm not inclined to read all 861 pages, I have the following comments. Pertaining to switching home heating away from propane etc; There needs to be a lot more incentives. I would love to switch to solar, geothermal and wind. Even with the current incentives We cannot afford to do any of it! The cost return is just NOT there. To have it mandated would bankrupt us. All of it needs to be very much more cost effective and I don't mean raise the price of propane. Vehicles have come a long way in a short time and have a long way to go to be reliable for Up-State use or in agriculture. There is still the question of infrastructure being able to support that mandate. There is also a question of batteries with pollution of making and of recycling the dead ones. There are places where technology works fine, but in Up-State, things can be challenging with bad weather that can last days. Anything based on an electric grid is a fools bet for at least the next 20 years, maybe more. The idea of putting a milage tax on people is nothing more than another money GRAB!. It results in the Up-State people paying far more than the city(s) where the real pollution comes from. Just look at any major city at rush hour twice a day but especially at closing time. This project is going to discriminate against and be costly to many people, with the bottom line of having very little effect on climate change. We all know the climate was changing long before man was even on the scene and will continue to do so long after we are gone. | ||
| Robert Kalin | Burning dead wood does not add to the atmospheric fossil carbon load. Burning wood simply returns the CO2 captured by the tree in recent decades past, back into the atmosphere. Were we to simply let wood rot away it would return the same amount of carbon into the air as burning does in a shorted time span. However cutting live trees to burn should be discouraged, since each living tree is actively capturing excess (much of it fossil) carbon and storing it as cellulose, starch and sugars. | ||
| Joseph Barone | |||
| michael niziol | Making it illegal to burn wood products is highly discriminatory to poor rural families many of whom rely on firewood to keep warm in the winter. Of course those of you who are ensconced in your warm fossil fuel heated homes in the cities would not understand this | ||
| Beth Robtoy | I do not agree with NOT allowing wood burning in NY. Especially in Upstate NY the Southern Adirondack and Adirondack areas. This is a natural way of life.. Fire brings peace and warmth to people and families. People should have the right to burn wood for heat or for pleasure. There are other worse and more abundant sources that should be stopped. The "little" man , the few, should be able to burn wood. Go after " harder" or a "path or more resistance " BIG COMPANIES. Leave the "little guy" alone to live like their forefathers have lived for generations. Personally when ever I rented, built or bought my homes, I made sure to have a wood fireplace , a second source of heat, if I ever needed to use to care for my family in times our power/ heat outages. Most memorable was when I needed to use fire during 5 days of an ice storm when no heat or electricity was available I used my fireplace to heat my 2 small children and myself a single mother. Do not take our right away to care for ourselves and our families. | ||
| Ricardo Riostirado | Operation Steel Rain | For people who live in rural areas, heating with wood or wood pellets it’s very much still a viable option, if you live in a heavily wooded area near lots of forests. Wood is actually the biggest bargain of all the more traditional forms of fuels, particularly if you source, cut and stack it on your own.That may account for its growing popularity, that and the fact that people love the feeling of sitting in front of an open fire, burning wood and getting warm and comfortable. If we invest in a wood burning stove that has special emissions controls and a catalytic converter (yes, just like those found in cars). We could meet the goal of environmental guardianship and not financially penalize those who live in rural areas. Modern wood burning stoves and fireplace inserts are much more efficient than their distant relatives of old – those masonry, open-hearth fireplaces everyone had a few centuries back. This would benefit all of us and will not financially penalize those who live outside the city. Modern pellet stoves are known for being more environmentally friendly and there are also EPA certified wood stoves that are noted for their burn efficiency. The great thing is that, if it is installed in the main family room or living area, particularly if you have a nice and open floorplan, with a minimal number of walls on the interior, a cutting-edge wood burner will provide just about all the heat you will need. So instead of a ban on wood, we should use our intellect and find ways to benefit all of our citizens and not only those with unreasonable goals and expectations. | |
| Philip Nuffer | Before you ban people that burn wood for heat you better end open burning like brush burning, farmers burning bails of hay or fields, all campfires personal or at campgrounds, large wood burning plants, controlled burns etc. all other burning should be banned before you take away cost effective heating source. | ||
| Philip Nuffer | Before you ban people that burn wood for heat you better end open burning like brush burning, farmers burning bails of hay or fields, all campfires personal or at campgrounds, large wood burning plants, controlled burns etc. all other burning should be banned before you take away cost effective heating source. | ||
| Minette Van Dermark | Recently i have heard about change / recommendations made to fulfill the laws passed to reduce emissions. I do not agree eith ny changes. (1) no gas for nyc buildings. Electric heat is SO much more expensive than gas! Where and how is electricity coming from? Maybe you should look into reducing emissions from electric plant. As a cook, i prefer cooking on gas than electric. It's more controllable. (2) no burning wood. What about campfires? Are you going to kill a tradition that has been going on since beginning of time? My grandchildren will never know about cooking smores over a campfire. (3) no gas powered ATVs. What are people suppose to use? Our local fire drpartment uses ATVs to rescue people. | ||
| Nancy Sagar | There needs to be more education on and enforcement of rules/laws about burning garbage. People in Madison County and especially in Chenango County( our previous residence) are STILL burning household and agricultural ( Plastic) farm waste in burn barrels or just on an open burn pile. Our rural areas are cluttered with old, rusted farm equipment which is unsightly and dangerous with metal laden run off as well as being a safety issue with children playing nearby. Our fertile farm land is being threatened by installation or proposed installation of solar panels. Acres and acres of land are list to these unsightly panels. Local governments are being bombarded with offers from private companies trying to get panels in before most people are able to research long term issues that may be caused by these panels. Open the pipelines from northern areas please! Electric cars or other modes of transportation is not the answer! | ||
| Keith Gilligan | You would be far overreaching your authority as our elected officials too try and ban heating with wood. Upstate has been using this resource for 100's of years | ||
| Diana Harewood-Bey | Federation Moorish Science Temple o f America | What about home that have been Burning wood for over a 100 years? No gas line in the neighborhood for over a 100 years. Wood is use for many things and it has always been and will alway been a part of nature and burning firewood. | |
| Joseph Douso | What do I do with the fireplaces that are already in the house for the last 40 years . Who's going to be able to sell a house with 2 useless fire places. I can't afford to just rip them out | ||
| Roger Rinard | The idea that the state can ban the use of a renewable energy source for a huge portion of the state based on the idea that upstate residents use of wood and wood products is contributing to the cesspool of NEW YORK CITY is absurd. The state legislature would be wrong to impose yet again a downstate short sided idea because they have issues with air quality due to the congestion they choose to live in. Any day in western new york with multiple wood stove, campfires and wood powered furnaces running is better than the best day in NYC. Maybe they need to take accountability for their own back yard before they dictate what I do in mine | ||
| Ralph Taylor | Whose going to pay for alternative heating costs? Many depend on wood to heat homes in winter. When bushes are cleaned up and hedges removed by farmers, where are they expected to put waste. Better consider HUGH landfills? A total joke. Someone better get outside and visit the real world. Also solar electricity is good (I have on roof),but not worth much in winter. Get real. | ||
| Sue Utter | Please leave us alone! You are already placing restrictions on us and taking away liberties. Having a campfire brings many of us peace and solitude | ||
| Ralph Luce | If u band wood heat for homes u will lose more tax payers to warmer states u dummies including me | ||
| Aliçia McManus | By making New York's completely dependant on electricity for all aspects of living is signing ourselves up for utter failure. It makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our electric grid that would wipe out majority of the state! We need natural resources to still be available. Either it be a solar flare, emp, bad weather or terror attack on our electrical grid would be most deviating if we allow such a push on electrical dependence. | ||
| Bryan Cole | I applaud the efforts to move towards a carbon neutral environment, however there are many technical hurdles. The current electrical infrastructure is inadequate to reliably distribute the energy needed for today's needs as evident by the numerous calls to reduce energy usage during the summer. A complete revamping of the transmission and distribution network is needed. Requiring only battery electrical vehicles (BEVs) in NY is not a smart idea. There are the additional costs related to the vehicle itself, which is at least 1.5x more than existing ICE vehicles. There are additional costs for owing a BEV as the homeowner needs to install a charging system at their home. BEVs have a useful life of about 10 years and have significant degradation in range in cold temperatures, which most of NY experiences from October to March, leading to range depletion of up to 0.6x the EPA estimate range rating. Many industrial processes, e.g. kilns, furnaces, etc., operate from natural gas as the technology does not exist to operate from electrical heating. This requires significant costs to employers. Even if the process can be moved from natural gas to electricity, it could require a significant amount of electricity that is not available from today's resources. The use of wind and solar generation is inadequate for many needs. The usage curve for solar and wind makes these system too costly for general use in most locations in the US, but are being rapidly deployed based on a good marketing campaign, not sound engineering principles. Nuclear energy makes much more sense. NY is already a high-taxed state. Adopting policies without low-cost, common-sense solutions will continue to drive people from NY, leaving higher costs for those people that are least likely to be able to afford it. | ||
| Bonnie Keller | A lot of people in NY burn wood for heating their homes because they can not afford any other fuel. This would put a lot of people out in the cold. | ||
| Jim Welch | Taxpayer | Homes that heat by Wood/Oil/Propane. Do you expect they will stop using these? Who will pay for new sources. The home owners? Will never happen | |
| John Kinney | Leave the wood stoves and coal stoves alone in people's homes. It is the cheapest way to heat a home. Find something else to do with your time. This state makes a lot of money on the sales of firewood / coal. Also stove sales! People earn there living on these items. Are you trying to put them on the unemployed list!!! | ||
| Jessica Lucas | Leave us alone! NYS is more that just the city! Other countries burn their garbage on the streets. These countries burn plastic in the streets so much that it hurts your lungs every night!! With how much taxes are please just let us be! We pay our share for our little slice of heaven so please let us do what we want on our own property! God bless you! | ||
| Martin GRUNZWEIG | As part of the your review, plan on addressing the needs of the Amish community who we all know do not use electricity in any form as part of their religious beliefs. There needs to be exceptions as there are many families living rural New York State. Unless this is addressed It will slow down your approval process as it will meet with... obviously ...much resistance. | ||
| Jerry Rivers | North American Climate, Conservation and Environment(NACCE) | ||
| Tina Fahy | The real answer to climate issue is to PLANT TREES. END CLEAR CUTTING. NOT to transition to unreliable technology. Or solar fields that are toxic and ruin land forever. Plant trees and leave our reliable energy alone. No one believes in the climate cult. Plant trees. That’s it. It’s that simple. | ||
| Louise,Potter | If the CLCPA's goal is to electrify all household heating and appliances, along with our entire transportation network, then it is also creating the single largest weakness to our state (and it's people) in history. All it would take to shut down our entire state and create a catastrophic landscape would be for a foreign actor to take down our electrical grid. Imagine a NY in which you have enacted all of these goals (we are 85% electrified) it is the dead of winter and the grid gets shut down. People would not even be able to travel to receive or give help because all of our vehicles are also electrified. It does not even need to be a foreign actor that does this, in the world of climate change extreme weather events that take out the grid are not only likely, but a certainty. I am not against climate mitigation in any way, but before any of this legislation gets enacted you better make damn sure that our electrical grid is bullet proof. I suspect that you won't. Too many upfront costs of course, but you are setting the entire state up for chaos and failure if you don't. I'm not being an alarmist. It doesn't take much to imagine the scenario I laid out. Do not enact these policies without taking care of our security first. The electrical grid needs to be made robust in ways I can't even imagine. Make that your #1 priority. | ||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. To Whom it May Concern, As a lifelong resident of Western New York, I would like to say NO WIND TURBINES IN LAKE ERIE!!! I can’t believe it is even being considered. Dave Hensen East Aurora NY Sent from my iPhone | ||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA, It is just a matter of time when regular people with common sense can see through a scam. The climate won’t be helped by wind turbine and solar panel industries that do their dirty manufacturing on the other side of the planet so NY can call itself “clean“. It won’t be helped with piles of defunct wind turbine blades piling up in Bath, NY, visible from the 390, non recyclable and considered BPA containing toxic waste. (Any claimed recycling process uses big furnaces and tons of FOSSIL FUEL and happens nowhere right now.) Likewise and similar results exist for spent solar panels. Are you considering the costs from start to finish? Are you considering how much electricity is actually produced vs. what we are paying for? Do you realize the cost of decommissioning and the huge piles of chemical laden trash these end up being? Many people have observed the Steel Winds turbines on the Lake Erie shoreline in Lackawanna NY for a decade. Their most recent 21 mil repairs have taken 2 years where most of the time they weren’t functioning at all. Now as of October 2021 all 14 are back, but for how long? On days with no wind the 14 brand spanking new machines stand around doing nothing. As they are doing nothing their red flashing lights and other systems still run, how much power do they use? Are WE paying for these power parasites when they don’t move? I have been keeping a log of their activity since March 2021. The NYISO website shows real time production data for wind and solar electricity statewide and its always under advertised installation capacity. These expensive and inefficient monsters ABSOLUTELY DO NOT belong in our precious fresh water Lake Erie where they will leak oil, kill wildlife and disrupt settled industrial toxins on the lake bed, shed BPA from epoxy blade coating and poisonous rare earth elements from their magnets, be frozen, be inaccessible for much of the year. I could fill pages with the negatives. There are no positives except in the bank accounts of their promoters. You can spend all our money on more of these systems and cover New York State with them and when wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine you will get a big fat ZERO from all of them. Any battery storage systems used with wind and solar on an industrial scale can handle only hours worth of electricity, are expensive and worst of all explosive. They should be considered bombs. The only way these “green energy” industries survive is by our subsidy money, ignorance, false hopes, flat out lies and unchecked criminal activity. They are not helping the environment, in fact they are making things worse and more people every day are seeing this. Thank you for reading and adding these comments. Mary Lynn Hensen East Aurora, NY | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Hello My name is Jane Nygård. I have admired the good work of removing pollution from Lake Erie, to see how the lake has become healthier and fresher over the last, almost 30 years. Now I see that there are plans to place wind power in this lake, where only a thin layer of sediment is what keeps large, toxic contaminants in control at the bottom. Wind turbines of such sizes, use around 5000 liters of hydraulic oil at each oil change, to this one is highly carcinogenic. It often occurs, and can ruin water. Peeling in from the wings , contains Bisfenol A, a synthetic hormone copying substance. The construction and use of this wind farm, will shange te conditions on the bottom of the lake, with wibrations and infrasound. I hope this wind turbines never will become a reality. Jane Nygård |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I feel very strongly against installation of wind turbines in Lake Erie. I’m an avid sportsman, charter captain, business owner and life long western New York resident. My reasons are:Harmful installation and operation could pollute our drinking water, affect wildlife patterns, fishing, and livelihoods of many people without making the area better. Inefficient electricity production and an eyesore up and down our shoreline!! Sincerely, Capt. Daryl Wiese |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. To whoever gets this, Does putting these windmills in the lake make up for the dollars that would be lost by: * the fishing contest held on this end of the lake * the charters captain dollars that would be lost; from loss of good fishing areas * the loss to/of recreational boaters in this area of the lake * loss of revenue to the support businesses in the area ( think: restaurants $$, hotel $$, gas station $$ ) I do think all this should be considered before this plan gets applied in my area of western new york. Regards, Harry Blaszkiewicz Angola, NY | ||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. For the intermittent, unreliable power that turbines produce, as well as their high financial cost, their environmental cost and the death of avian creatures installing turbines in Lake Erie cannot be justified. Reviewing the power production of industrial wind turbine projects document the unreliability of such projects. Attached is the production for the 24 hours of January 13, 2022 taken from https://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html The total power produced by all Ontario turbines at 11 AM when power is required was 32 Mw out of the 19,941Mw from all sources. At midnight all turbines produced 918 Mw when the power was not required. Production records prove putting turbines in Lake Erie as a power source cannot be justified. Ruby Mekker Finch, Ontario Living with turbines to which no consent was given |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good afternoon, I am trying to access the new Draft Scoping Plan in hopes of being able to review it for our business in the state. However, whenever I attempt to access the New York State Climate Act website, the connection continues to time out and has been for nearly two weeks. I have not been able to access the site at all. Is there another way to access the Scoping Plan at this time? Thank you. Regards, Braeden Braeden Larson (he/him) Policy Analyst 587.801.4384? 484.415.0501 x142 www.climeco.com Named on Inc. Magazine’s2021 Best in Business List for Environmental Services and Inc. Magazine’s2020 5000 List of America’s Fastest-Growing Private Companies Honored recipient of the2018&2017Project Developer of the Year awards presented by the Climate Action Reserve. Subscribe to our newsletter, CarbonCopy. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I understand the 120 day comment period begins January 1. It does not state whether it is calendar or business days. I am assuming calendar days, but can you confirm the deadline for comments is April 30, 2022? And being April 30th is a Saturday, will there be any adjustment to that date? Thank you, Karren Karren Bee-Donohoe Associate Vice Chancellor SUNY Office for Capital Facilities (she, her, hers) The State University of New York H. Carl McCall SUNY Building - 353 Broadway F209 Albany, New York 12246 [email protected] Tel: 518.320.1894 Be a part of Generation SUNY:Facebook -Twitter -YouTube SUNY Office for Capital Facilities Webpage |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my lack of support for this plan. NYS’s financing and incentives for developers to construct, operate and possibly decommission land-intensive weather-dependent solar, wind and battery energy resources in our rural and agricultural communities will negatively impact rural town’s growth, development and property value for generations. Industrial solar and wind projects should not be sited on agricultural land with an abundance of prime soil. The residents of these rural towns do not have to bear the burden of NYC's irresponsible use of energy. Studies have shown solar needs can be met solely by siting on their building rooftops. This should be the approach taken - not destroying prime soil and farmland needed to grow food and sustain agricultural practices. How can one claim to be protecting the environment, while actively destroying it? A 250 MW solar plant will consume over 2,000 acres of prime farmland. With the goal of 6,000 MW, I'm sure you can do the math.. Additionally, NYS taxpayer monies should not be going to serve out of state corporate interests. A (gross) profit of $22 million a year for 30 years is absurd. That money should be going to support the hard working taxpayers of NYS' counties and towns. Poor rural towns and counties should not become energy plantations for power hungry urban cores. Senate Bill S4722A proposed by Michelle Hinchey and signed by Gov Hochul establishing the soil health and climate resiliency act further supports this case. This shouldn't need to be mentioned, but it also states in the NYS Constitution that agricultural land is to be preserved. I hope you will listen to the residents of NYS, rather than those lobbying for the sake of corporate interests. Home rule should remain as such in these instances. I've also copied the senator and assemblyman within my district - Michelle Hinchey and Angelo Santabarbara. I appreciate you taking the time to consider and support your constituents. Best Regards, Jennifer M |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Not being able to use wood for home heating would be a nightmare! It would be devastating to our economy. Many people can't afford new furnaces or stoves.Many jobs in our area are related to firewood. I know alot of people who cut down bad trees or fallen trees to burn so it cleans up the land. Our government comes up with all these ridiculous bills and laws. With our power grid in such poor shape how do they expect it to support all the increased electricity needed if all wood burning equipment is banned and all these places having to switch to electric? It seems to me elected officials are elected to help their constituents not continuously cause hardships for most of them to better the lives of a handful! During the bad ice storm many families were kept from freezing because they had wood stoves! My whole family was able to keep warm and cook off their wood stoves for days during the ice storm. In many areas it took weeks to correct damages from the ice storm ! With the unpredictable winters we have so many rely on wood stoves. Many families can't afford to replace their wood burning equipment. Rebates given for replacement don't begin to cover the costs of new equipment or installation. It is time our representatives think of areas other than NYC when they are drafting some of these new laws. Think of hardships these laws are causing for families struggling already to make ends meet!!!! |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear sir or madam, As a lake front property owner and long-standing fan of Lake Erie and the Irving/Angola area, I’m very much against the construction of wind turbines within Lake Erie (especially among some of the most pristine and much loved areas of this incredible waterway). The environmental impact to local ecosystems is unacceptable, the effect on local travel and tourism (particularly amid and in the aftermath of COVID-19) is economically concerning, and the pollution and visible obstruction of long valued beaches and lake front properties is an insult to the generations of families and citizens who have cared for and appreciated the incredible influence of Lake Erie shores. Those of us most impacted by the introduction of these turbines DO NOT want them anywhere within these peaceful waters. Moreover, with alternate land-based options available, it is perplexing to understand why this iconic body of water - that is so highly regarded among our communities as a shared resource - is the target of this plan. Thank you for your attention to this feedback. Kind regards, N. Gonnella-Platts |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. We just heard on the news that there is consideration of banning wood burning stoves for heating homes. We live in St. Lawrence County and are very fortunate to have a wood stove only as a back up to our fuel oil furnace, but many families are dependent upon their wood for their sole heat source. In this rural area, there really are families who own “wood lots” and cut their own wood for heat. There are even men who “scavenge” downed trees for wood for their families, picking up a large limb or tree when a storm knocks it down. We keep our wood stove as a back up for heat if the electricity is off. In our northern location, temperatures are commonly below zero at night (-12 last night, in fact) and the power being off for even a few hours can mean cold homes and frozen pipes. For those of us who remember the ice storm of 1998, we know much more destruction would have occurred without our wood stoves. Our electricity was out for about 20 days (22 I think) and we kept our house and our water pipes warm with our wood stoves. We are very concerned about climate change and environmental concerns. We recycle, conserve energy every way we can, and plan to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle the next time we trade, but giving up the security of the supplementary wood stove in the basement frightens us. Thank you for considering this. James and Nancy Rutledge |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Climate Action Plan Comments Buildings: The former NYS Energy Office had a zero interest loan program, with no income requirements, for homeowners and multi-family building owners to install energy conservation measures such as new heating units, storm windows, and wall, attic and basement insulation. They also had a low-interest loan program for businesses to install energy efficient machinery. Energy conservation and energy efficiency are the easiest and quickest ways to save energy and reduce emissions. There are many buildings in NYS that have radiator or steam heating. Heat pumps with ductwork would be prohibitively expensive in these buildings. We need 100% biofuels for these homes and buildings. Efficient district heating and cooling and utilizing residual heat from various processes should be a priority. Proctors Theater in Schenectady is a good example of district heating and cooling. It is almost impossible to buy a clock thermostat for an electric water heater. You do not need to run your water heater when you are sleeping or at work. When a water heater is turned off, it will keep the water hot for hours. Transportation: Until there is technology to recharge electric vehicles in less than 5 minutes, how do we expect people without home charging to buy EVs when the shortest time to fast charge a vehicle is about 25 minutes? People who cannot recharge at home are not going to tolerate having to spend 25 minutes to recharge their vehicles at public chargers, and that does not include time waiting for vehicles in front of them. About 45% of NYS residents live in multi-family units and almost all do not have the ability to recharge at home. We need 100% biofuels for those people who cannot charge at home. Conventional, non-plug-in hybrids, utilizing biofuels, should be part of the solution until we have, if ever, EV charging in less than five minutes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can fuel up in the same amount of time as gasoline vehicles. But, the cost of fueling stations is very high and green hydrogen would be necessary to avoid upstream pollution from creating hydrogen. All internal combustion engine vehicles should be required to have idle-stop technology. EV Charging Infrastructure: I have seen many Level 2 public charging stations that are hardly ever utilized. Most public charging stations receive government grant money. Considering that new EVs get over 200 miles to a charge, it is not worth the time and increased cost for people to charge their vehicles at public level 2 chargers, except when traveling long distances. Level 2 chargers in the Albany Walmart and Crossgates Mall are hardly utilized. There should be statewide usage analysis of Level 2 public chargers, that received grant money, to help plan where future chargers should be installed. We shouldn’t be wasting money on placing Level 2 chargers in locations that have been shown by analysis to be underutilized locations. Is it worth installing chargers at food markets, department stores and other businesses where people spend 15 to 30 minutes? Level 3 chargers are different in that all EV owners will need to use them when traveling long distances. There should be a geo-spatial analysis of Level 3 charger usage to analyze how far from main arterials will people travel to recharge. Also, are Level 3 chargers being utilized by people who don’t have home charging and live in MUDs. Biofuels: For buildings that have radiator and steam heating, and for those people who cannot charge EVs at home, the state needs to include biofuels in the climate plan. Hemp can be made into biofuel and can be grown in NYS with little or no chemicals or irrigation. Renewable gas is another approach taken by California and other states which reduces emissions from agricultural and other waste and creates a cleaner fuel with a negative carbon footprint. In the early 1900’s, vehicles were powered by batteries, steam and gasoline because no one fuel had proven to be the solution. We are in a similar situation and we need to be open to various fuel types for transportation, just as our power grid has various fuel sources. Lawrence D'Arco 1202 Greenwich Dr Albany, NY 12203 [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Again nys thinks it's going to fast track the world into the future of a no carbon footprint . but the reality to most of this is we as new Yorker can't bear the cost of the new changes much less most of us are barely getting by. I heat my home soly on wood the cost to go to electric is more than my budget word be able to afford much less the cost for the electric bills in the future. It seems to me no one has yet to discuss the impacts to the electric grid that is already out dated and can't handle the heat in the summer when use goose up. How are we as new yorkers to trust a system that is so porn to failer and has in many storms left people without heat water and basic needs. I truly believe we need to do our best in making the world a better place but we still have not perfected the power grid that you feel we should all rely on. Not to mention the price gouging and more less monopoly this creates for the electric companies to be a sole fuel supplier. I'm truly sure the gas and oil companies are good with that. I know I'm not. We need better resources and more price guarantees to insure that things stay affordable and we don't take any more food off the tables of the working man. I have herd no tax breaks for up grades I only see this as a way to add cost to my every day life that is already strained. Thank you . Joel Welninski |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good morning, We have received several inquiries from viewers who are concerned about the state potentially banning the use of wood-burning stoves and boilers as part of the Climate Action Council’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and other emissions. This is a concern for New Yorkers who burn wood to heat their homes. Does the Climate Action Council have a comment on the possibility of this happening, if there is one? Jeremy Ryan News Director WKTV NewsChannel 2 Utica, New York Newsroom: (315) 793-3475 Web:WKTV.com Twitter:@JeremyRyanWKTV |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Why have we not heard anything about controlling the pollution that is created by planes? |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Dear NYSERDA Folks, Below and attached are my comments regarding the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you for considering them. Best regards, John Morelli ------------------------------------------------- John Morelli, PhD, PE 535 Five Points Road, Rush, NY 14543 [email protected] Topics to which your comments apply: Chapter 7. Just Transition Chapter 19. Land Use Chapter 20. Local Government THE PROBLEM “Climate change is expected to have many impacts on agriculture, forests, and other ecosystems in the Midwest . . . In the long-term, climate impacts are likely to have increasingly detrimental effects that increase variability in crop and agricultural production.”[1] This will affect the nation’s food supply. In NYS, where less than 5% of our land is considered to be Prime Farmland[2], it would be prudent to protect that land. Yet, in its efforts to accelerate development of renewable energy sources, NYS has neither provided any real prohibitions or meaningful incentives for protecting prime farmland nor made any effort to collaborate with local governments in its attempt to reduce carbon emissions through development of renewable energy facilities. The State has taken a heavy-handed, dictatorial position in this effort and has been blind to the efforts of municipalities that are trying to support the State’s 6,000 MW goal. Example: The Town of Rush, in Monroe County created a law permitting 150 acres of solar electric generation facilities on its prime agricultural and residential lands. This is five times what might be expected on a per town basis in NYS; nine times what might be expected on a per square mile basis; and 28 times what might be expected on a per person basis in NYS.[3] Yet, there is no State recognition of the Town’s effort. The Town finds itself to be at odds with the State’s drive to accomplish its goals regardless of the significant contribution made by the Town toward meeting the same goal. This is not how America is supposed to work. A NEED TO WALK THE WALK . . . Section 20.1 of the Local Government and the Climate Act states that “Local governments are well positioned to have a far-reaching impact on community action” and that “Partnership with local governments is a keystone of the State’s clean energy, adaptation and resilience, and GHG mitigation strategies, and support for local efforts will help ensure access to the benefits of these actions for all New Yorkers.” Thus far, we have yet to see anything that can be called “partnership” in this regard. èA suggested alternative strategy for partnering with local governments could be to ask municipalities to submit proposals regarding meeting such goals and to provide support for this effort. Chapter 7 of the NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan’s Vision for 2030 (p. 193) proposes “actions to maintain and increase carbon storage and sequestration on the land base in New York and in agricultural and forestry products through the avoided conversion of farm and forest lands.” This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 19 Land Use (p. 272). Section 19.1 Overview mentions that “sustainable land use planning and zoning can facilitate optimal siting of renewable energy.” Also mentioned is, “To ensure zero-emissions electricity while increasing sequestration to reach net zero by 2050, local governments will be challenged with balancing these different types of land use.” This is followed by Section LU3. Avoid Agricultural and Forested Land Conversion of the Scoping Plan which states: The objective of this strategy is to maintain and protect the State’s potential for carbon sequestration on agricultural and forested lands through avoided conversion. It will also help to enhance farm viability, increase food security. . . Protecting farmland has the potential to maintain or improve local food production, community resilience, water quality, air quality, storm and flood mitigation, public infrastructure protection, drought resilience, wildlife habitat, economic development, and employment. Finally, it explains: This strategy requires continued support from public policy and funding for land acquisition, conservation easements and tax incentives; outreach to landowners for interest in selling lands or conservation easement opportunities; coordinating with vast numbers of municipalities with different zoning and planning goals (home rule); improved data connecting land conversion and quantification of GHG emission reduction; understanding the opportunities for land access and intergenerational land transfer. Missing Components of the Strategy. Eleven components of a strategy are presented to accomplish the goals set forth in LU3, however, these strategies do not: èProhibit conversion of productive agricultural land to industrial renewable energy facilities, or èHelp offset the dramatic additional costs of constructing a solar facility on brownfields, landfills and other such lands as compared to doing so on hundreds or thousands of acres of flat, cleared, prime farmland. As a result, business-minded renewable energy companies are driven to lease and use prime agricultural land for their facilities. This is short-sighted and unconscionable. [1]Climate Impacts in the Midwest | Climate Change Impacts | US EPA (chicago.gov) [2]Prime farmland of New York | Library of Congress (loc.gov) [3]NYS & RUSH LAWS (rush-solar.com) |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. With regards to the potential restrictions on burning wood products, I have an early 1900's vintage house that over the years I have upgraded the insulation, doors and windows to be commensurate or exceed current standards. In parallel, have upgraded the heating systems to be (2) Mitsubishi single-zone hyper-heat mini-splits and a 53k btu harmon pellet stove. The mini-splits do the bulk of the heating, and are absolute champs during the spring and fall. However, even though the mini-splits are rated to -13F, on those January / February days when the day time temperatures struggle to exceed single digit and the nighttime temperatures are below zero, I shut the mini-splits down and rely on the pellet stove. So just like renewable energy being a mixed portfolio of wind, solar, hydro and battery storage, this plan should allow for multiple sources of heating including relatively "clean" sources such as pellet stoves given the winter temperatures in upstate NY. It is those outdoor wood boilers that should be banned since a single wood boiler can envelope an entire neighborhood in a choking haze of wood smoke. And more importantly, the outdoor fire pits should be banned. At least with wood and pellet stoves the heat is being used for a purpose. The fire pits are just releasing smoke and particulates into summer time air that may already have high levels of pollution and are a hardship on people like me who primarily rely on fans to cool their house and cannot do so because a neighbor has a smoldering fire pit. And even more scary is seeing their pile of scavenged wood include pressure treated lumber scraps. respectfully Scott Wittchen 13 Riverside Park North Mechanicville NY 12118 Saratoga County [email protected] |
||
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. Attached are my preliminary comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. i recommend an extension to the public comment period and technical briefings for specific issues. Roger Caiazza 7679 Bay Cir Liverpool, NY 13090 [email protected] |
has attachment | |
| [email protected] |
ATTENTION: This email
came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails. I fully support the continued growth of the industrial hemp industry in New York State. As an economic engine. As one of the best hopes for saving our home. As a driver of social reform. James A. O'Shea. |
||
| [email protected] | ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Although New York State may be leading the Nation in reducing greenhouse gases, I do not see any listing of the carbon credits that are sold off to other states, which returns to New York in the form of acid rain. Please include the number/amount of carbon credits sold in the report to give a complete picture. Thank you, Todd Pfleger Sent from my iPhone | ||
| Jie,Ma | |||
| Daniel,Duell | Please reject these measures. | ||
| David,Malecki | has attachment | ||
| Michael,Kusiak | Attached document with comments regarding Draft Scoping Plan | has attachment | |
| Michael,Kusiak | Attached document with comments regarding Draft Scoping Plan | has attachment | |
| David,Malecki | |||
| Kathryn,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby, Rochester | See attached. | has attachment |
| Lawrence,D'Arco | |||
| Terri,Stranburg | Cattaraugus Development/ section 8 R ental Assistance | As an administrator of rental assistance to low income families & a private citizen, this proposal seems to be thought out by very uninformed legislators. In rural counties, natural gas is the cleanest & most economical. Two years time is NOT a realistic time frame. Alternative “Green” sources cannot be in place by then. Landlords with many units will balk at investing in new energy efficient appliances. Do the people making this proposal have any interest in their citizens??? It seems their only focus is the global climate change even though other nations are doing nothing “Green”. Nothing will be gained in this paradox. The solution will come in the form of technological breakthroughs. When there are affordable “green” options, the public will choose them. As the pandemic demonstrated, citizens will fight mandates. Force will not get the result this proposal desires. Using some common sense & compromise is the better course of action. Please vote down this plan which will force more New Yorkers to abandon this state. But maybe that is what the New York Legislative body wants. | |
| James ,Roush | I am not in favor of skyrocketing energy costs associated with the proposed transition away from fossil fuels in NYS. It will be detrimental to middle and lower class families as well as, the majority of businesses! It will lead to an even larger exodus from the state increasing taxes for those who remain. Thank you | ||
| Robert,Kilcoyne | [email protected] | We the people can not afford to be lead by radicle thinkers any longer! The radicals have caused to much damige to our country in every aspect. The electric grid can't handle what we have today let alone everyone plugging in a car or 2 per household, and every household running on nothing but electricity!!! So everyone heating houses and plugging cars in during winter and the power goes out. Can't go to work, drive to safety of freezing to death and the rich and elite radicles push to stay in power by cutting the Americans throat's. I agree we need to clean America up but it can't happen over night and we are tired of the radicals secret agenda's!!! | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | Please see attached file with detailed comments. | has attachment |
| Jeremiah,Bretl | |||
| Kevin,Dailey | Green Waste Energy, Inc | Comments regarding the processing of waste are attached. | has attachment |
| Roger,Caiazza | The attached comment explains why an accurate and detailed evaluation of renewable energy resource availability is crucial to d etermine the generation and energy storage requirements of the future New York electrical system. | has attachment | |
| Dietmar,Detering | Nuclear New York | Dear members of the Climate Action Council and Advisory Panels, Nuclear New York respectfully submits the attached document s for your attention. Note that we have also submitted these documents to the Clean Energy Standard docket today, in case you encounter it there - they are the same documents. Thank you for your work! Dietmar Detering Co-Chair, Nuclear New York | has attachment |
| Thomas,Heckmann | - | Please see attached. | has attachment |
| Bill,W | Please see the attached document below for comments, thank you | has attachment | |
| Matthew,Stachura | See uploaded Word Doc. 2000 characters is not enough to express my concerns. | has attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustain able Energy Advisory Board | See attached letter | has attachment |
| Rebecca,Novick | |||
| Dan,Carnahan | CT 184 Consulting | Please see attached file. | has attachment |
| Roger,Caiazza | The recently posted Draft Scoping Plan Overview summarizes the next steps in the public comment process. However, there is n o substance so it is not clear how the process will proceed. The attacged comment describes my concerns and offer recommendations for the process. | has attachment | |
| Fernando,de Aragon | ITCTC | Attched is a pdf file with comments from the Ithaca-Tompkins Council Transportation Council for Ch.11-Transportation. Please co ntact us if you need any clarification. Thank you. Fernando de Aragon Staff Director [email protected] | has attachment |
| andrea antalek | To whom it may concern, I am a home owner on 19 acres who primarily heats with wood. I don't cut healthy trees but only harvest downed or damaged trees responsibly. A consideration to ban wood stoves would devastate my financial situation and I'm sure that of many fellow upstate NYers. I'd like to add that, when sourced locally and responsibly, wood is carbon neutral. I am not in favor of solar and wind energy as I am in no way convinced of their efficiency but rather certain that it is driven by energy companies to force upon us monopoly in every aspect, even the transportation sector which has already proven itself to be detrimental in the delivery of much awaited goods countrywide. It will result in loss of more taxpayers to other states and votes in upcoming elections. Please consider wisely! With much concern, Andrea Antalek | ||
| Harold Biller | The plan talks about converting gas driven vehicles to electric vehicles. There are two problems with this. One is that electricity in New York City is more expensive than anywhere else in the country except Hawaii. It will cost the average driver more in electric recharging costs than it would cost to continue using gasoline, and that's without counting the cost of installing a recharging unit in one's garage. Secondly, highways in the United States are maintained by gasoline taxes. What is going to replace the loss of these taxes to maintain the roads ? Regarding converting boilers and furnaces to electric heat pumps, again the cost of electricity in New York City is much more per BTU than natural gas. How is the average home owner going to afford winter heating bills which will dwarf summer cooling bills, without even discussing the cost of conversion ? | ||
| Colleen Martin | We need to continue being able to burn wood & access gas & propane!!!! Yes we can add more solar, wind, water & nuclear energy but to try to eliminate the other is ridiculous. People can’t afford to pay the crazy prices thanks to inflation with our ineffective leadership. Are you going ban campfires next? Seriously why aren’t you going after tech companies since they have created so many issues with disposable products that end up in landfills & aren’t recycled. So many low & middle income use wood & pellet stoves for heat. Many people can afford to heat their homes with wood because it is easy to access & free for some. It is ridiculous that someone downstate feels as they know what is best for upstate. Keep pushing & I will be happy to move down South. Anyone that votes for this will lose my vote!!!! | ||
| Jayson & Jill Campbell | People in upstate NY use wood burning stove, wood boilers and pellet stove to help afford their heating. The idea that we need to go to electric is crazy...how is electric produced? We are selling Niagara mohawk power to other states! | ||
| Carlos Ramey | Because everyone wants to build offshore wind, there are too many physical limitations to do so. Rare earth metals must be used to manufacture the turbines; ships and crews are needed to build the foundations and erect the turbines; undersea cables and the ships to install them must be sourced to deliver electricity to shore. And all will result in construction bottlenecks, higher costs and long delays. Furthermore, the environmental backlash against offshore wind is just beginning, which will tie up some projects in courts for years. As for building 3,000 MW of battery storage facilities, it would likely cost about $1 billion dollars, based on the $80 million cost of PG&E’s 300 MW Moss Landing facility that was completed last July. What’s more, it would provide just 12,000 MWh of electricity — about as much as New York City consumes in one hour on a hot summer day. As for solar power, there’s the pesky issue of ensuring there’s enough electricity at night. The plan’s transportation assumptions are similarly ludicrous. It predicts that by 2030 — just eight years from now — New Yorkers will have purchased three million electric vehicles and will be content to purchase only electric cars and trucks thereafter. So where will all the electricity to power this electrified economy come from? According to the plan, it will be supplied by new technologies that don’t yet exist. The plan might as well claim that the Starship Enterprise will travel back in time to deliver these new technologies. Better yet, why not just decree that the electricity will be supplied by unicorns and pixie dust? Unless Albany also intends to overturn various laws of physics and, even less realistically, overturn the state’s traditional bureaucratic ineptitude and graft, none of the Climate Act’s lofty goals will be achieved. | ||
| Michael Griep | After briefly going through your Draft Scoping Plan, their seem to be a number of conflicting areas. The plan calls for the elimination of fossil fuel powered vehicles and the elimination of fossil fuels for home heating purposes. The question then is, where does all the new energy come from? Your answer seems to be to import more of the electrical needs which just shifts the GHG emissions to another state. The alternative is to increase renewable energy sources dramatically. In the same document you are advocating forest and agricultural land preservation as a way to sequester carbon. We have lost nearly 100 acres of rented farmland this year to solar panels. These two goals seem to be at odds. If your goal is to preserve farmland and increase solar energy sources you need to start looking at other locations that can meet both these goals. There are a lot of acres of rooftops (shopping centers, office buildings, industry) that could take some of the burden off farmland. | ||
| Mark Iwaszk | This is in reference to Andrew Cuomo's Climate Action Council. As I reside in Orange County in The Town of Greenville, NY, I see many homes near me and most of them have either fireplaces or wood burning stoves. In bad weather in our rural area, there is no guaranty how long our power will go out. We rely on our stoves for heat which provides us a safe haven when there are frigid temperatures outside. I even have changed my appliances to propane in the event of power outages during the winter. Most of us in rural areas depend on our wood stoves for actually surviving cold winter months when needed. It is not a luxury; it is a necessity!! Mr. Cuomo's Climate Action Council for NY upstate is fool headed and down-right ridiculous!! | ||
| Brandon Smith | Scott Smith & Son Inc | The benefits of these plans do not out weight the cost. The residents of NYS are being asked to pay for more than their share to cover those who cannot. Climate change is a global issue and imposing tighter restrictions on residents of NYS will do nothing but cripple our lives and our local economies. | |
| john POOLER | Find me a way to heat my house at the same price I'm paying for burning wood, before you take away the right to burn wood. Also what about campfires? | ||
| Yueming (Lucy) Qiu | University of Maryland College Park | Please see our comments in the attachment. | has attachment |
| Celeste Pl | I do not believe the our state government should be implementing laws now or in the future on how we heat our homes with wood burning stoves or fireplaces, when there is no viable replacement for them. Until other resources become readily available and cost efficient, we should be able to heat our homes as we see fit when using wood or fossil fuels, and not become reliant on 'electricity,' with all of its power grid problems, as well as enormous cost. Many more people will leave this state, or freeze to death. NO BAN ON WOOD BURNING STOVES AND FIREPLACES FOR NEW YORK STATE. THIS IS CERTAINLY A CASE OF GOVERNMENT OVER REACH, WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE MANAGE OUR PROPERTY AND HOME. | ||
| Peggy Lynn | I am not a scientist or climate expert. I simply want to commend the people and agencies who put this plan together. I especially appreciate two aspects of it. First, the identification and consideration of Disadvantaged Communities is very important. Wealthy communities will leverage political and financial power to take care of themselves. Disadvantaged communities will need extra time to communicate their needs going forward. I also appreciate the idea of NYS leading the nation in climate action. As a grandmother, I hope your plan will be implemented with the boldest possible timeline, action, and resources. Thank you for your efforts. | ||
| Dale Ricker | For hundreds of years the American people have used wood as a way to heat their homes and to cook with. Now all of the climate change believers think it’s a bad idea and want to dictate to everyone else how they should live their lives. If Long Island and eastern Mew Yorkers don’t want to use natural gas or wood to heat their homes, fine. Stop using them but quit trying to tell the people in central and western New York how to live. | ||
| Doris Sweeney | There is enough dead wood in the forests of NY to burn without harm or waste. Not a good bill. | ||
| Jeffrey Peters | I have to state my opposition to the proposed phasing out of fossil fuel and wood burning for residential heating. I supplement my home heating with firewood in a modern airtight wood stove ( equipped with catalytic reburn) to decrease my heating bill. Our furnace is a 95% efficient natural gas unit. We are insulated to current standards and we keep the house at 67 during the day and 63 at night. Your long range proposal does not take into account the residents that rely on these products to live. Many areas don’t have any options other than electric which is too expensive and unreliable. After the last 3 day outage our wood stove was the only source of heat. I hope you hear from the people most affected by this proposal and not just environmental activists. As a final observation, I am retired from a regional utility company and know that the states infrastructure is not ready for this planned transition. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Victor Logan | The CLCPA will have no effect on the climate and carbon offsets will be over run by developing countries. When implemented, the CLCPA will cripple NY with unaffordable mandates, business killing electric costs and an unreliable power grid leaving people vulnerable when it is most needed. | ||
| Roger Caiazza | Retired | While I appreciate that the appendices are now broken out of the scoping plan on the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan webpage, it would be extremely helpful if the text of the Scoping Plan was available without the appendices and broken down by chapter. | |
| Christopher Shea | Self | If you’re going to use public health as the focal point for pushing an issue you should first look at the major health problems like cigarettes. People use woodstoves and woodburning techniques to keep warm and cook. cigarettes are not necessary. You also might want to look at all the obese people and start pushing good health practices instead before you go and take away something that’s going to cause a huge uproar 🤦ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸ | |
| Kathyjo Smith | I AM AGAINST OUTLAWING WOOD STOVES FOR HEATING YOUR HOMES. IF PROPERLY INSTALLED AND CLEANED REGUARALLY THEY ARE SAFE. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE OWNERS REQUIRED YEARLY STOVE CLEANING SERVICE THAT WOULD BE LAGIT. THE COMSUMER PATICUALLY MYSELF , RETIRED, SINGLE HOUSEHOLD, CANNOT AFFORD TO HEAT WITH FURNANCE OR EVEN MORE EFFIENT GREEN SORCE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, WOOD STOVE CUTS DOWN ON THE COST. And if you already have land with wood it helps even more. Cutting the old wood out pervents the falling of the timber where it may do severe damage to home or property or personal injury.theres much more games and pollution from factories, suburban business, cargo trucks lomotive trains. Vechiles without proper exhaust systems ,local business | ||
| David Mariani | I am totally opposed to NYS politicians limiting or Hindering the use of wood burning stoves and furnaces to heat Homes and businesses! Many People use wood for their main heating source, and with High prices of gas and heating oil, Many low income families would suffer because of Albany Bureaucracy! Washington and Albany should be looking at making all heating sources more efficient, clean burning and cheaper for citizens.The politics involved in the Energy crisis right now is idiotic! I will be glad to Vote AGAINST anyone that pushes this political agenda! | ||
| Lewis Fleming | Many thousands of households in New York State heat their homes with firewood , coal , wood pellets etc , some without any other source for heat , considering it was -1 at my house this morning ( January 11th 2022) I believe people need to burn wood to heat their homes, perhaps someone needs to look at China , they are the biggest offenders of carbon emissions in the world | ||
| Sharon Molik | Burning wood as an alternate/supplemental heat source is crutial if you are living in New York State. I have been using a wood stove inside my 250+ year old farmhouse since I purchased it in 1996. We slowly update our home & insulation however, the cost to completely re-insulate every wall & cavity of a 3100 sq ft home, is cost prohibitive. Our other heat source is LP gas/forced air. We have many small rooms and the thought of attempting Electric heat, (where we cant put any furniture against a wall) is mind boggling. Not to mention the cost involved. Our furnace runs every 10 minutes during the winter, even with wood heat to supplement. No amou t of electric heat will keep my home warm. The cost wouId be astronomical. As you are aware, the cost of electricity is also very inflated and it is impossible for many people to even consider electric heating. Our energy grid leaves MUCH to be desired as well. We lose electric service at my address, on a very regular basis, more often than I ever did while living anywhere else. Our first year in this home, we lost power more times than I did in my entire life growing up in the suburbs. This has only improved slightly in 25 years. Without wood burning or our gas/propane generator, our home would be uninhabitable within days during the winter season. Wood/fossil fuels are absolutely crutial and necessary in colder climates. We cannot survive without them. We could potentially be forced to leave our homes, without the ability to sell them absent the wood alternative heat source(s). What might seem a minor inconvenience to some, is financially devasting to others. We caannot put the burden of reduced carbon emissions on the backs of so many....who simply cannot afford it. Wood burning heat must be preserved in New York State and all areas thst see reduced temperatures. It is inhumane to prohibit this absolute necessity. | ||
| Andrew Carter | Revelation Ink | has attachment | |
| Michael Bell | Any attempt to eliminate or regulate wood burning home heating would have a disproportionately adverse impact rural residents of low income and minority households. | ||
| Paul White | 1944 | Mitigation strategy: 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles - Overview $$$ - Nearly $1B in ratepayer and NYPA funding is already committed for EV charging station installations. ZEV incentives can be supported through a revenue-neutral feebate, but additional assistance may be needed to help LMI New Yorkers replace old gasoline vehicles with ZEVs In 2020 we replaced a Scion XB after 136,000 miles and 13 years of use. We priced electric vehicles but their typical cost was between 10-15K $ more than a comparable, gasoline only vehicle. So we now own a new Subaru 2020 CrossTrek. Gas milage averages 28-32 for our typical use. We have a 2008 truck that needs replacement. Ford is advertising an affordable hybrid small truck that would be appropriate for us. Unfortunately is isn't a ZEV. Climate change is a daily news item. Since the industrial revolution 300 years ago, Oceans have warmed on the average of 2 degrees. Sounds small, but if the ocean were NOT absorbing carbon and heat, the average land temperature of of planet would be 140 degrees or more! Maybe it is too late to fix the problem, but the effort must be made. | |
| Sean Mckenna | Stop making new laws. Fix the laws you have in place. We need to burn wood. It keeps us warm. It keeps the forest management in check. | ||
| glenn pirozzi | You can not just make drastic changes like not letting people heat their houses with wood or mandating everyone to use electric to heat or must use electric cars and trucks the electric grid could never handle this .we are many many many years away from going all electric Glenn Pirozzi | ||
| Katie Bickford | I am highly opposed to this entire Draft. This is an incredible Government overreach into our communities, businesses, properties, and homes. This will cause an unbearable amount of taxes to be paid, as well as doing NOTHING for the environment. This is a way for greedy politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers, as usual. We see the example set by California and their "rolling" blackouts to conserve energy, all for the "Greater good" of the environment. It's proven to not do a thing except put burdens onto the citizens. As a native northern NY citizen, this Climate Action Plan is terrible. | ||
| Nathan Bailey | Thank you for taking the time to hear our request. We believe that preserving and establishing a healthy environment is key for the well-being of our state. We also know that in every endeavor there needs to be a balanced course of action. There are many families, individuals, and disadvantaged living in upstate New york. We rely on our wood stoves in the rural areas for heat. We ask that you continue to allow us who work hard the right to be able to care for our families and the environment and responsible way. We want the right to continue to use our wood stoves and a renewable natural resource to heat our homes, care for our families, and provide for our communities. | ||
| Cindy Marshall | I implore you to use some common sense when entertaining sweeping changes that effect the lives of people. Take the time to understand what these things mean to the everyday existence of many folks. For example; do you have any idea how many people in NYS depend of wood burning to provide heat for their homes? Do the research in reality, not in some utopian dream world that fits your agenda. | ||
| Roberta Edwards | I have no other way to heat my home. I can not afford to put in a furnace or any other heat source. We can’t depend on electric it goes out a lot and stays out for some times days I have several Omish neighbors that don’t use electric they raise animals for an income and the barns are heated with wood National Fuel does not have any pipe lines that come to my area I would not be able to heat my house as I can not afford the pay for fuel oil,propane or more electric. Our electric is not cheap I try to use as little of it as possible as I can not afford it | ||
| Steve Sheffield | Many occupants of NY State heat their homes with firewood as either a primary heat source, or just to help off set their heating bills during the cold weather months. I sincerely hope that eliminating wood heat, campfires, bon fires, and outdoor grills is not in your long term plan. | ||
| William Meehan | Transportation and buildings are two of the largest contributors to NY's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and both of them stem from our state's failed approach to planning roadways, transit systems, and development. Electrifying vehicles is insufficient to meet our GHG emissions goals. We must also set strict limits and downwards targets for VMT, including ending all planned and future road widening, shifting DOT towards maintenance, complete streets, and downsizing only. This also means ending policies that lock in car ownership and use, including exclusionary zoning and parking mandates. We must appropriately charge for parking on public land, and toll congested roads to reflect the GHG they emit and the negative health externalities that impose on neighborhoods around them. We must repeal restrictive zoning around transit so that people can lead car-free lives more easily. That transit must have minimum all-day service levels, so that people can plan their lives around it. Frequency is freedom! And for the remaining cars on the road, we must disincentivize large and inefficient vehicles like SUVs and pickup trucks, which require much more energy to operate and cause more damage to our roads. To solve building emissions, retrofits are only one piece of the puzzle. A large reason why building emissions are so high in NYS is due to detached homes and old building stock, a direct result of our state's restrictive zoning. We must allow more apartments and townhouses with efficient technology like mini-splits and modern insulation. | ||
| Peter Davis | The climate leadership is putting the last nail in the coffin for rural ny. Upstate NY is not New York City. The climate leadership program does not have the best interest in upstate NY and has unrealistic goals that will drive rural ny into the ground and out of business. Families and communities rely on gas oil and lumber/ forestry products for lively hood,(heat,income, reliability). The proposals are not feasible or realistic. It seems to people in upstate NY the climate leadership program has no problem trashing and developing rural upstate NY for their liberal agenda and unproven solar/wind technologies.People do not want to be told what to drive how to heat homes ect. It should be the peoples choice instead of more regulations shoved down our throats. The climate leadership will get further with less resistance by working and separating new ideas and regulations with up state and down state regions. There has already been lots of steps and laws on emissions both federal and state. Just to be clear upstate and rural ny is not against new technologies and cleaner ways of life but the main problems are not where the population is low in rural areas, it is in city's and highly populated places. One size does not fit all and this is still a somewhat free country | ||
| Michele Johnson | You don't get it. Most of the people in my community, my friends and neighbors heat their homes with wood. Wood is there ONLY source of heat. There is no possible way you can convert everyone over to electric heat. There is so many things wrong with idea I don't know where to start except to say, you don't get it. When the power (electric) goes out, do you know who is still warm in their homes??? People who heat with wood! Not only are they still able to feed the wood stove with wood to keep their home nice and toasty while the power is out, they can also warm up food on top of their wood stove, heat up water and set damp clothes on a rack next to it to dry. I'm actually jealous that my friends and neighbors that have a wood stove. As many times as the power goes out in a year in my neighborhood I would love a wood stove in my home. I am asking you to STOP this nonsense of taking our heating sources away. All you are doing is wasting our tax dollars to drive your green energy agenda and it will fail. I can promise you that. | ||
| Karen Casselbury | NY leadership is once again missing the mark. To focus punishment on the hard working people of upstate NY is discriminatory. The issue is NOT wood burning. Does anybody stop to think that the world population is now just under 8 billion? One hundred years ago it was 1 billion. Forcing NYS residents to rely on electricity is another way for politicians to pad their pockets and force reliance on a poor infrastructure. How many politicians are using public transportation? I can safely assume very little to none. I am appalled at the lack of overall common sense of the people making these decisions. Government should want their constituents to be self sufficient, but not in NYS. Do you realize that many people call NYS the “communist†state? I am dumbfounded that anybody in this country would even think that banning wood stoves,etc, would even be on the table of decisions to make. Population control should be our focus, if you can’t support your kids, you shouldn’t be permitted to have them. Focus on improvement of public transportation and walkways in rural areas. World leaders, state leaders can impose whatever rules they want, but as long as we allow our population to explode, we will never be able to stop global warming. | ||
| Diane Christiansen | Inefficient, unreliable, grossly expensive monstrous wind turbines do not belong in our fresh water lake, Lake Erie. Government does not own this natural resource that provides water for drinking and agriculture. It took many years and money to clean up the lake, rehab delicate eco systems, restore Bald Eagles, rebuild a recreational economy only now to disrupt the life of residents. Niagara Falls is a major producer of hydro power. Locals get no benefit from this. Other Countries are suffering from the devastating effects of buying into the the wind power lie. Please NO WINDMILLS in Lake Erie!! Water is life!!!! | ||
| Heather Lesch | The part of this legislation that is most concerning to me is the ban on the use of wood for heating purposes. This is a ridiculously out of touch mandate from those who are not impacted by the legislation they propose to pass. The reliance on wood for heat is not a lifestyle choice it is the best alternative for those in rural areas who are most often of a lower income. It provides a stable heat at an economical rate, in an area where winter weather can adversely impact the electric supply. I would strongly urge anyone on this committee to go to northern or western NY in February and see the exact circumstances in which this ban would happen. | ||
| Debra Mcavoy | I personally think the proposal to ban wood as a heating source is ridiculous- many of our family, friends and neighbors have wood as an exclusive heat source since many areas near us do not have access to natural gas. This would be a horrendous hardship to our household as we have 50 acres of woods on our property and we need to be prudent in the way we manage our woods. This would also be a horrible hardship for our nearby Amish community. Please pick another area to rip apart you are already destroying our State with all the crazy liberal ideas. | ||
| Sandra Jee | University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry | Hello, I am a general Pediatrician and co-director of our Environmental Health Center at U of Rochester School of Medicine. On behalf of the Finger Lakes Children's Environmental Health Center, which is part of the statewide network for NYS Children's Environmental Health network, I am glad to comment on the relevance of climate action plan that is considerate of the impact on disenfranchised communities. As a pediatrician who has worked for 20 years in underserved communities, and who has cared for patients in communities of color, I have witnessed firsthand how decision makers are disproportionately affecting poor communities that have limited access to safe and clean housing, clean water supply, clean air, and green spaces. I understand how these communities are adversely affected by climate change, and how this is manifest in poorer health outcomes, such as increased respiratory illness (asthma, respiratory problems), allergies, and heat-related illnesses. There are so many things that we need to do to help mitigate these negative impacts. Our health care system is also principally responsible for adding to greenhouse gas emissions. We need continued funding to expand educational interventions to raise awareness of these issues. We need to provide more green space in urban areas and invest in affordable and safe housing for communities that have suffered years of historical oppression and racist policies such as redlining. Thank you for listening. Sandra Jee, MD, MPH | |
| Lisa Golden | I am appalled that NYS will be banning wood burning for heat. I just wanted to give you facts. First and foremost, I could not afford fuel heat and went to wood as it costs me very little to process the wood to heat from the fallen trees on my property. Second, we would have froze to death several times of power loss in winter over the years especially during the ice storm. You’re making NYS a place no one will want to stay… people are leaving, this will cause more to. 8 months of the year require heat, don’t make those that are not eligible for government heating assistance programs suffer, we carry enough burden. Don’t let people that are above or below middle class make devastating life decisions for us. Here in the country winter weather cripples us, and wood heat most times is all we have to survive. | ||
| Debra Karpinske-Keyser | January 10, 2022 Good Afternoon, I am writing today to provide a brief comment on your Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. While some of these ideas may look good on paper, it is obvious that you are very disconnected from the majority citizens of New York. People of New York are not concerned about "Climate Justice". I urge you to you to visit communities across New York State talk to the constituents you represent and how these changes would impact people on a day-to-day basis. People are leaving New York en mass. Adding more restrictions and mandates to the people of New York will only further the great migration to other states. You need to be making New York a desirable place to live. Your meetings should focus on how to make New York a state that people want to flee to, not from. Best regards | ||
| Keith Chabot | This climate change agenda is all about Ny putting more restrictions on the people in this state.Its just another way for the big tech corporations,the politicians that are in bed with these corporations,state officals,legiselators,law makers/government to put more money in their pockets by taxing the h--- outta the people.All that is being done here is a controll thing for the pencil pushers to feel good about themselves,sit behind your desks and hide behind each other to push an agenda thats far fetched and un realistic.All of you government officals need to realize that you can pass all the laws you want,trying to implentment them will be another story that you choose to ignore.I have read some of the plan, there appears to be alot of in consistancies, alot of uncertainty,alot of mumble jumble b----- honestly.The whole plan should be s---canned and you officals get a good taste of reality. WAKE UP NY THEY ARE TAKING ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS AWAY FROM US ONE BY ONE | ||
| Sharen Trembath | Citizens against Wind Turbines in Lake Erie | Recently, Governor Hochul announced finalized contracts for Clean Path NY and Champlain Hudson Power Express to deliver clean renewable energy from upstate New York and Canada to New York City. Translation: Industrial Wind turbines will be installed in Lake Erie and the power will be sent on to New York City. We get nothing in return. While Buffalo has been consumed with fixing historic old buildings and development of the outer harbor, our Governor has been quietly selling out our Great Lake to the higher bidder, in this case Diamond Wind (a subsidiary of Mitsubishi). What the public needs to know is how this plan will change our lake. There is a “no go zone†between the turbines which will change how we boat and fish. Recreational use of the lake will be changed dramatically. (Don’t expect to fish off the platforms you can’t get close.) The poured concrete platforms will forever cover any historical or native artifacts in the lake, and if the last few storms have taught us anything; it’s turbines will not withstand the wrath of Lake Erie. They will also change fish migration and possibly the current (physics). Watch the shoreline change. She speaks of “Social Justiceâ€. The dredging could dig up all the buried toxic waste from years of steel plant sledge being dumped and buried, thus possibly ruining our fresh water; the source of water for 11 million people. How will we be able to go back once the lake is contaminated? Lake Erie is a known migration path for birds, bats, and Monarch butterflies. Recently we have a resurgence of the American Eagle. The turbines were once described as “bird cuisinartsâ€, and would again disseminate the population. It’s time for the developers to stay out of the Great Lakes. They know the turbines are an ineffective and inconsistent form of energy. This is the second time we have fought developers trying to “buy†our fresh water, and it’s high time to have a moratorium against leaking, industrial wind turbines in | |
| John Riggi | Ladies/Gentlemen, I have reviewed the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. Unfortunately the Plan, as written, is founded on an unacceptably small climate dataset. As a result, plan is fatally flawed throughout. One example are the statements indicating a statistically significat in increase in disasters (previously: natural disasters) is as follows: The World Meteorological Organization found that in the 50-year period from 1970 to 2019, the number of disasters worldwide increased by a factor of five, and economic losses due to weather, climate, and water extremes have increased sevenfold. 5 Scientific consensus is represented by the works of notable international, national, and local scientific institutions." (Draft Scoping Plan, pg. 12). Basing this scoping plan on a 50 year slice of the Earth's geologic time is unfounded statistically and highly biased. For example: The Earth has been moving out of a mini-Ice Age since 1850, but the impact of this data on the last 50 year slice is not factored into the plan. That is, there is no assessment of the impact on warming of this natural event in place since 1850. As such, this scoping plan is not valid and needs to be discarded. Another Scoping Plan needs to be developed to take into account all climate factors over a much long geologic timeframe in order to scientifically determine anthropogenic climate change impacts. Poorly done Ladies and Gentlemen. If you'd like to contact me to discuss, please use the information listed as follows: [email protected] 716-430-2425 (mobile) Sincerely, John Riggi Councilman, Town of Yates, NY | ||
| Ira Goldman | Chapter 15 states that increase in wood products including firewood is needed to increase woodland carbon sequestration capability. However the restrictions on wood burning stoves and furnaces with goal of converting all residential heating to electric energy will decrease the consumption of renewable firewood consumption. Moving to all electric heat pumps for residential heating will be cost prohibitive in rural areas and leave residents exposed to unaffordable increases in electricity costs. Also, the proliferation of heat pump equipment carries a risk of leakage of refrigerants over time that needs to be considered in the life cycle impact of this recommendation. Elimination of all natural gas (and propane) use for residential heating will have the same cost risks as noted above and coupled with the already high property taxes in NYS will encourage even more people to move out of state. | ||
| Patty Terry | This is rediculous. Lawmakers try and be concerned about environment and make silly laws that make low impact. Banning wood burning is rediculous especially since a large amount of upstaters use wood to heat and cannot afford other sources. The real band would hurt their pockets and their companies that line their pockets. Look for real solutions not bandaids. Is bad when third world countries have more solutions for recycling and better products. Look up how much plastic making uses oil....so we ban styrofoam so we can make more plastic and therefore buy more oil from abroad. A 14 year old found a way to recycle styrofoam but probably cost too much to implement. Makes sense huh. | ||
| Luke Macaulay | Dumb Bear Farm | New York State's current electrical infrastructure is barely sufficient to support the existing demand let alone forcing all new builds to be completely dependent on electric for heat. Furthermore, in what universe are we living in that people believe electric to be a clean alternative to natural gas, propane, oil, kerosene, and wood? While I fully support doing everything that we can to reduce the drain on our environment, I see this plan as deeply flawed and poorly thought out. Unless NYS plans on raising it's taxes (while already imposing the highest taxes in the country while also having the most debt for a single state) to financially provide for new electrical infrastructure AND offering all green electric production, I do not see this plan as feasible. Additionally, should NYS raise its taxes AGAIN, people will be forced to either not be able to afford to live in NYS or leave NYS for neighboring states where government regulation is less all encompassing. Regardless of what NYS decides to do, I do not believe that this state has MY or my family's best interests in mind and will continue to do what is best for the politicians and the residents of NYC. How about NYC begins paying the Upstate Regions more for the use of our resources to begin generating additional income for the state. | |
| Thomas Fischer | I heat with firewood and own 50 acres full of dying ash trees. I wont be retiring my wood stove. | ||
| Debra Hinz | We burn wood to heat our home and I cannot believe that you have the authority to tell us that we can no longer do that. With the price of heating oil and natural gas it would be impossible for us to heat our home any other way being that we are retirees on a fixed income and living in New York is already incredibly expensive and over-regulated. Stay out of our homes!!! | ||
| Homer Champagne | Independent grower ag forestry operation in Altona N.Y. I'm working and living way too close to many large wind turbines. My health has failed from severe infrasound and breathing in bpa. 12 years of severe infrasound and it has changed the ecology. No set backs to dwellings were honored. The environmental engineer failed miserably in Altona and most likely in other townships as well. Turn them off, tear them down. We've done more than most towns. Now our hills are coated with tons of bpa and the indian reservation has taken enough abuse in Altona. | ||
| william hill | With taxes in NY well above the rest of the country, and rampant inflation soaring- denying residents the option of heating with firewood is unfathomable. Firewood is a local renewable resource that has provided an economically feasible alternative to fossil fuels for generations. Besides the increase of heating costs to homeowners, this would be a terrible economic blow to the logging industry. | ||
| Jessica Macaluso | I would not agree to any part of a law that prohibits the burning of wood to heat a home, for agricultural burning, or recreational bonfires or campfires. This law disproportionally targets rural citizens. | ||
| William Squires | Clean Air is much more important than heat. I never enjoyed acid rain either. Bill | ||
| Charles Ricci | To whom this may concern, Do politicians even think about what there doing before they do it? With that being said why even propose a law to ban wood stoves in New York State? Many individuals do not have access to public utilities such as propane, electric, or even natural gas. If you even think of banning wood stoves take a ride around the country and look at the Amish for example. For example they don’t use electricity, so many of them have a wood boiler to heat there homes and businesses. So your going to take that away from them? Do you realize how much the Amish do for us? Many of them have business that pay taxes to support the government. Oh and may I remind you that all of them returned the stimulus checks since they don’t believe in government assistance. All I’m asking is worry about other crisis than banning wood stoves. | ||
| Charles Florence | I've heard rumors NY is planning to ban the use of wood burning appliances such as fireplace to heat homes, this is a ridiculous idea when every day I watch 20 to 30 tractor trailers loads of wood chips enter Ft. Drum to fuel their eco friendly biofuel facility. This government take over of every aspect of life in NY will do nothing to improve the climate and is about as effective as smoking and non- smoking areas in restaurants were a decade ago. Our primary adversaries China, Russia, and industrial competitors such as India are doing little to nothing but you want to cripple NY with draconian regulations that are questionably effective. Also the use of a separate group of non-elected bureaucrats to create environmental regulations is an abdication of responsibility by our elected officials. | ||
| Barry Walsh | You people are just out to stop the world we as a country are not ready for every home to have full electric my house has a 100amp service then you go and add electric heat an electric hot water heater and an electric vehicle at a min 1 we have 5 vehicles. So then those cars need to charge @50 amps each do the work on that one the grid is not stable for this then every house on the street needs to have enough electricity to charge the cars they have the grid won’t sustain it fix the grid first. And give people incentives to change | ||
| Janice Boncella | I burn wood to heat my house. Banning me from that while allowing the power company to burn coal to create electricity for me to use in place of my wood stove does not make any sense. | ||
| Kerri Jaeger | I in no way support naming the use of wood burning products as a heating source. For most of NYS that is not the city. Using wood or wood products as a heating source is cheaper then electric and other fuel sorces. Esp when you live in a state that does have below zero temperatures. And still has magic ower outages. You should go visit people like my self who use wood products to heat. In my option the heat is warmer and cheaper the other sources. I’m disabled I don’t have the extra funds to get a heat pump put in and the heat pumps don’t work below a certain temperature. People would freeze 🥶 | ||
| Doris Bac | I think there are better things and more important things to use the New YORK STATE TAX MONEY FOR. Stop putting new laws on the books that hinder the life and finances of the lower class. We have enough trouble making ends meet than for you to take something like our wood stoves and away that are most time free heat for us except the work to put it in. Wood burning was here before you were born and should be allowed forever, it is a natural. Most of us use it because we can not afford the fuel or oil or electric to heat with and taking it away will mean some of us are going to be colder and will have to buy less food and less medications because this crazy government wants to take something again away from the people. It is time all government people go out and live a life with 1/4 of the income you have now and see how that works. I bet you can not do it. Well we have to and it is hard. I am tried that this so called government that is suppose to be for the people keeps making more and more stupid laws and WE THE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE NO SAY, you do it in the middle of the night you do it behind our backs and all you say is it is for the better of the people. Well you should NOT be making any law that does not come to a PUBLIC VOTE. we the people should have a say in each law not just the government people, and do not tell me that our representative vote for us the way we want as that is just as much of a lie as well | ||
| James Shepherd | RimRiserUSA | To Address the nonsense of taking yet more rights of TAXPAYERS by limiting their God Given RIGHT to use THEIR LAND to Heat THEIR HOME! Under a new guise of Environmental Safety you are asking CONSTITUENTS to replace their unit or rely on the Government to Heat their home. We will fight and defy this under our Rights as TAXPAYING AMERICANS. I propose we invoke a Taxation without representation act as our representatives have all but abandoned our interests while reaping huge salaries. â–¶Number two is the Comical banning of Selling ATVs in New York which clearly was the cause of pollution in NYS and most efficient transportation for Farmers and countless others. This is nothing more than an attack on NYS Business owners Farmers and people who enjoy outdoor activities using a vehicle that gets 80 mi per gallon . as an ATV enthusiast and TAXPAYER This wont make it go away i assure you. | |
| Patrick Willson | Me | Just look at all the b----- you people do with no clue what it who you hurt. It's time we citizens kick you stupid a---- out of our lives ..nys and nyc are two different places..thank you for nothing your a bunch of m----- people . | |
| Erik Dean | While I am completely in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reversing climate change, I believe we need to evaluate the impact on our citizens and provide assistance to help meet those goals. For example, many of us choose to heat with wood either as a primary or secondary heat source because it is inexpensive and allows us to repurpose trees that have died or are threatening power distribution or our homes. A blanket ban on wood burning would be asking our citizens to re-engineer their homes or find some other, more expensive and perhaps dangerous, means of reducing tree waste. If the goal is to remove emissions, provide complete funding to install filters on stoves (already required on new stoves anyway) to reduce the particulate and gasses while allowing us to continue to leverage affordable heating sources. Additionally, I see no mention of filtering vent stacks from septic systems or waste system which directly vent methane and other dangerous gasses into the atmosphere and are installed on EVERY house. Let’s aim for the big wins such as that instead of targeting smaller populations and possibly harming our ability to provide affordable heat to our families. | ||
| Lona Bryant | There is no Climate Crisis: - Despite the rise of CO2 , deaths from Climate Disasters have plummeted - Global temperatures have not measurably risen for over seven years - The earth is greener - Ice in the Arctic & Antarctic is expanding - Sea Level is not significantly rising - Hurricanes are not increasing Moreover the NetZero policies you are proposing will do nothing to stop the rise of CO2 given the fact China & India are building 1000s of Coal plants. The coal plants in China are being used to provide the power needed to manufacture the Wind/Solar & EVs your So called NetZero policies mandate. Wind & Solar require the destruction of massive areas of land to erect. Wind & Solar are unreliable sources of energy which require Fossil Fuel backups and skyrocket energy costs which will plunge people into fuel poverty. Fossil Fuel is a reliable source of energy which is abundant & will create jobs & weath in America, NOT COAL powered China where America’s wealth will flow to if these policies are enacted !!! https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/11/the_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html | ||
| Lona Landowski | There is no Climate Crisis: - Despite the rise of CO2 , deaths from Climate have plummeted - Global temperatures have not measurably risen for over seven years - The earth is greener - Ice in the Arctic & Antarctic is expanding - Sea Level is not significantly rising - Hurricanes are not increasing Moreover the NetZero policies you are proposing will do nothing to stop the rise of CO2 given the fact China & India are building 1000s of Coal plants. The coal plants in China are being used to provide the power needed to manufacture the Wind/Solar & EVs your So called NetZero policies mandate. Wind & Solar require the destruction of massive areas of land to erect. Wind & Solar are unreliable sources of energy which require Fossil Fuel backups and skyrocket energy costs which will plunge people into fuel poverty. Fossil Fuel is a reliable source of energy which is abundant & will create jobs & weath in America, NOT COAL powered China where America’s wealth will flow to if these policies are enacted !!! | ||
| Kevin Richards | I cannot understand where anyone thinks that burning firewood in a rural area whereas the land owner has in excess of 50 areas is going to affect the health of anyone with smoke from burning firewood to heat a home. I have lots of wood / trees on the property I reside on and would never kill a healthy tree to cut into firewood. In fact the White Ash trees that are on my property are mostly dead due to the Emerald Ash Borer. I heat my home with trees that have died and not let this invasive beetle spread any more than what it already has. Burning is a way to destroy invasive insects. So, there is a tradeoff between letting oxygen emtting trees die or protect them and burning is a way to not let invasive insects winter over to begin their cycle all over again. Has anyone ever measured the emissions of rotting trees in a forest (they also outgas during the decomposition process) vs what is released during the buring process? In addition, I keep my woods free and clear of dead trees, whether standing or lying on the ground. I don't want California's problem with fildfires and all of the fuel they have with dead or dying trees in the forests of NYS that you are against burning in a controlled burn. I am on social security and cannot afford to heat my house with any other means. When I first purchased this property. It cost me over $400.00 to heat my home with electricity and that was in 2004. In summary, I keep my woods clean to not provide fuel for wildfires, manage the spread of invasive insects and to be able to heat my home being on a fixed income. | ||
| Jordan Cichy | Some of us depend on wood burning to heat our houses. With the fuel prices soaring and no end in sight it seems like a bad time to come after homeowners on another front. | ||
| Dawn Lowery | New yorker | After reading the current wood stove ban discussion i am very concerned. Our winters are brutal and one thing we know is that electricity is an unfaithful lover and has always failed. History teaching us yr after yr ice storms it fails . blizzards it fails . hurricanes it fails. A hard wind it fails. It hiccups it fails. A sneeze it fails. To ban wood stoves would be a crime against humanity. The poor who need free heat would pay the price perhaps with their lives.wood is carbon neutral . Wood is natural.wood is dependable for cooking and heat. It is faithful. Our ancestors used it for 1000s of years they teach us how to live. The changes in climate began after our so called advances after the industrial revolution. Good came and bad with it. Let’s plan for a low energy consumption future and do better.let’s not forget last yr Texas power down | |
| Jane Porubek | I have beef burning wood for 50 yrs and have a small cabin in Sullivan County that’s been longer burning wood no electric there! I feel it’s yet another way for the government to control us. Factories smoke is ramped but let’s attack people who don’t have the funds for a system . A much wiser way is to regulate the stoves to burn their own smoke which is already out there for purchase. | ||
| Valerie Bishop | This bill would be detrimental especially to North Country residents that rely on wood/propane/fuel oil to heat their homes. Electricity is not an affordable option here plus during long power outages what do people use for backup heat when it’s -20 or -30 outside!! Please fight this bill for the North Country! | ||
| Jacob Rieper | The entire plan should be scrapped. New York needs to focus on economic development not on fringe political ideology backed by junk science. The state should open up the southern tier for gas fracking, not throw piles of money into wind and solar boondoggles. | ||
| Joseph Butterbaugh | There is 1,000’s of uncapped oil wells in ny state leaking methane into the atmosphere. How bout you go cap those in the name of health and future prosperity. You can’t see the methane so it’s not a problem? Oil drillers can burn excess methane off of a well but the average home is going to have to jump through home heating hoops? Back to the drawing board NY state. Houses have blown up in wny because of methane migration and new drilling, better go after the wood burner! Shame on you. | ||
| John Cerullo | We have a wood burning stove in our home, that is used all winter long, to help with the cost of oil heating. Our home is an older home, like many others in our neighborhood. Many of our neighbors burn would to help with their heating costs, as well. These stone homes were built as summer homes and were not insulated. Our utility company's infrastructure is a very old 4KV. The neighborhood suffers a lot of outages with long durations. Without our wood burning stove, we will not be able to heat our homes, endure frozen pipes and or to cook. Burning wood is innate in humans and is in our DNA as a species. Taking this basic need away from us would greatly harm the wood stove and firewood industry. The residents would suffer greatly by not being able to stay warm and their investments would be for naught. Hundreds of local firewood related industries would suffer greatly. They would lose their businesses and surely ruin their lives. Thank you, John Cerullo | ||
| Brice June | I have a very well insulated home with high quality windows. The house is equipped with base board electric heat but due to cost isn’t used. The house is heated with wood stove and wood pellet stove very efficiently. We tried one month to just use the electric heat, the result was $800 monthly electric bill, this unacceptable, and unreasonable. Costs of these changes need to be looked at or these proposed changes will fail. | ||
| Michael Du Vernoy | About planning on transitioning by 2024 NYS homes to have "Heat Pumps" in lien of oil, gas or propane systems this cannot work across NY State as a whole. It is much colder in the Catskills, Adirondacks, Western NY and North Country, than downstate. These systems work poorly in colder climates. Plus STATEWIDE the extremely high cost of electricity makes there use prohibitive worse for the less affluent upstate where they are least effective and would be running harder and longer consuming more electric. Current electric suppliers have had difficulty producing enough power during heat waves and cold snaps periods of high demand, also leading to higher prices, doubling during needed use. Power company's have also been restricted as to how they can continue to produce enough power to meet current demand as they also are mandated to cut their use of fossil fuels, before enough relevable renewal power sources are built. Poor planning for having the future renewal electric we need to heat NY State homes. Not to forget the Extremely high cost of Electricity in this State. Very poor planning. | ||
| Michael Du Vernoy | About planning on transitioning by 2024 NYS homes to have "Heat Pumps" in lien of oil, gas or propane systems this cannot work across NY State as a whole. It is much colder in the Catskills, Adirondacks, Western NY and North Country, than downstate. These systems work poorly in colder climates. Plus STATEWIDE the extremely high cost of electricity makes there use prohibitive worse for the less affluent upstate where they are least effective and would be running harder and longer consuming more electric. Current electric suppliers have had difficulty producing enough power during heat waves and cold snaps periods of high demand, also leading to higher prices, doubling during needed use. Power company's have also been restricted as to how they can continue to produce enough power to meet current demand as they also are mandated to cut their use of fossil fuels, before enough relevable renewal power sources are built. Poor planning for having the future renewal electric we need to heat NY State homes. Not to forget the Extremely high cost of Electricity in this State. Very poor planning. | ||
| Darlene Hemmer | [email protected] | Having heated with firewood most of my life I believe that even the thought of banning its use is ridiculous!! My family can afford fuel oil and it is great to save money by burning wood. How dare you think of taking that away from anyone. If you are concerned about emissions have your elitists stop flying their jets. If concerned about health then absolutely ban fast food and cigarettes as these cause more deaths than woodsmoke. This country has gone insane!!!! Other countries pollute 10 x more than us so banning firewood, forcing electric vehicles here is not saving the planet. | |
| Brett Willmott | Stop the burning of wood indoors and out...in villages and cities. Plattsburgh, where I reside is notarius for creating poor air quality all year. | ||
| Joan Mckeon | For fifteen years my cruel neighbor has polluted MY yard with toxic smoke from his outdoor woodboiler that he burns 24/7/365 and he does it with the protection of the DEC. All i want is to beathe air not tainted by his filthy smoke but i have not been allowed to do that. Fix this hateful advantage for the pollutors. I hate lost all respect for government agencies that have chosen him over me. Disgusted and bitter about my forced CONSTANT exposure to his poison. | ||
| Danielle Mitchell | I’d love for you to tell me how I should heat my home. It’s something that blows my mind. Does anyone realize that the focus of burning wood is no where near where the focus should really be. I grew up in a home that burned wood. It saved us more than once. Especially during the ice storm of 1998. How about this, whoever suggested this..how about they come live in northern New York from about December to March. ONLY then will their opinions matter to me. Just so you know it’s suppose to be -13 in a few days with a high of 3z Stop talking about something you’ve never experienced. Take a walk in our shoes. Live awhile under our roofs before you word vomit all over about something you know very little about. | ||
| Amanda Crump | Banning the use of wood as a heat source would be detrimental to those that are unable to afford fuel oil, propane, natural gas or electric heat. Those who utilize their own land to either cut their own wood or those who cut the wood to sell to others, this is a way of life for them. I understand changes need to be made to help our environment. We have an outdoor wood boiler that has a gasification system. What about giving a tax credit to those who replace their traditional wood stove with an outdoor wood boiler that burns much cleaner? This still allows people to burn wood for affordability while helping the environment. | ||
| Lana Kariuk | There is no emergency to rush changes to everything in the name of ‘climate change’. I recall that a little over 20 yrs. ago the scare was the entire east coast of the US would be under water. I recall 40 yrs. ago the scare was we were going into an ice age where everything was going to freeze up. No food, water, etc. please slow down, take a breath, and realize the earth’s climate is always changing. A little warmer,(very little!) and then a little cooler. Carbon is excellent for plants! We learned that at a young age. Plants make oxygen for us. Plenty of it. Again, learned at an early age. So how did adults get so ignorant? Make it easier on the poor and disadvantaged and slow down all these radical changes and incorporate some common sense. Thank you. | ||
| Thomas Petro | I am against the wood burning ban for many reasons. 1. The ban will not make a difference in the air because we are the only country being punished. 2. Wood burning to help keep our heating costs down. We also use propane. 3. There is not enough electric to run all these electric cars, fireplaces, air conditioning, lights, home heating, etc. With this ban we will have to buy a generator so we make sure we have electric enough to run our home. 4. You so called law makers, that think you know best, just keep proving to the country that you never think things through. 5. Run the numbers and really think before you leap. 6. Come into reality and come down from your high horse and live like we do. 7. To all the Democrats, take off your rose colored glasses and wake up. | ||
| Kevin Leonard | Life long resident | I have read and over looked some of the 861 page report. I totally disagree with a majority of the findings and scare tactics you posted as feelings and beliefs. I don’t see much hard scientific evidence throughout the report. For example no one can predict if less campfires and wood burning will stop heart attacks in upstate NY. Using words like “Justice†and “change†are words to fill in for science backed proof you don’t have. You are basing this utopian dream pipe on feelings and helping the poor. I am disgusted with your report and the more people I talk to who read this, the more they agree with me. This is not happening. We will fight this in the voting booth and the senate will repeal this dumb as hell bill. This bill or act will single handed kill New York. And more people will leave and then you will have no one to regulate to death. Other states like California have done this bull crap and see how the pollution is still there and people are leaving. Electric is not the way to go. Maybe Start by leading by example and convert all DEC offices to spaces with no heat or air conditioning to study the effects of human discomfort first hand. Then preach to us the need to change our lives and homes. You people are truely nuts. And getting worse with your job killing ideas. Your climate act is guaranteed to fail and fail hard. Immediately pull this horrible idea of fake crisis. Post this to the public forum please. | |
| Scott Ballou | Once again get to see how much you power drunk elitist love to eat George Soro's destruction cash. Why do you idiots want to ruin this state ? Why did you ALL hate all of the great companys in NYS? Why have you all refused to follow the constitution Of the United State Of American ? You are suppost to follow the law of the USA and most of all, do the will of the people !!!!! I heat with wood because I no longer can afford to buy propane, fuel oil or natural gas. This is all on your selfish falses. All jacked up George Soros's cash, deposited to your re-election accounts. No one cares that most have to spend ALL of my money , and everyone's food money, cloths, medicine etc... And about anyling else to stay warm !!!!!!!!! I am retired and use a pellit stove that burns at 99 percent. Most furneses almost can compete with this. You take that away and I will be all done. You have destroyed this State and wish you no well. I pray God helps remove all of your a---- from our state and put you all where youved earned to be. Before you do anymore damage, who all need to learn about cause and effect. I dont now 1 person in this state who doesnt hate you all. That is pathetic ! | ||
| Ryan Wilkes | This bill is completely unacceptable and needs to be thrown out | ||
| Brian Peck | If we take a look at forest management we need to understand and learn from the wild fires out west. If our aim is to reduce carbon emissions we need to understand that work is undone by nature in a much greater scale than our usage of the burning of firewood and bio fuels. Good work has gone into technology to make wood boilers on residential and commercial scales efficient and environmentally friendly. Banning of these fuel sources penalize rural areas that are good stewards of their forests. We need to provide our residents pathways to transition to best practices that are affordable to our most vulnerable people. | ||
| Andy Dolan | So we get a lecture to say what humans are doing wrong to the climate . What are these idiots ? spraying out of the airplanes on a sunny day ? When is the last time we had real clouds & not "seeded clouds " ? Its time these hypocrites come clean with us , its not afterburners . What is the objective ? WHY is it you can look at a moonlit sky @ 5am & I see the same thing ? Why are planes flying 24 / 7 & what are they spraying ? | ||
| Martin Wise | DO NOT BAN FIREWOOD USE OR NATURAL GAS! | ||
| Paul White | Low to Middle Income Household | Mitigation Strategy - Initiative #3 Gas System Transition Advance a managed, phased, and just transition from reliance on fossil gas and the gas distribution system to a clean energy system, including elimination of embedded subsidies for fossil gas. It is hard enough to comprehend the enormous task ahead, much less from a simple member of society circa 2022 which has reached a pinnacle of fossil fuel consuming pleasure. After 30 years heating with wood, We upgraded our heating system to use propane. We are in the LMI Household category. We are 50 years behind the fossil fuel climate disaster. I don't know if it is better late than never, but there is no time to waste. | |
| Stanley Zambalis | I am all for a new green New York but your plans your aggressiveness is going to kill people upstate New York they depend on their wood stoves here in Long Island it's supplements the heat I can't afford to pay my heating bill I hate one room in the winter it's $300 forget about the house you're playing might sound good but for the elite the rich that don't care about the common Man this is a disaster the plan should include new designs new construction better burning pellet stoves and wood stoves where's the common sense your infrastructure cannot handle all the electric you don't have enough solar panels out there you don't have enough geothermal out there I get it you want change but people's livelihoods and lives are in your hands that's the just of it from here on the streets. Your Ivory castles will not last forever people's lives are on your hands | ||
| Steve Reilly | To once again punish the average person and take away a need and pleasure that comes with having fires and burning leaves rather than persuing the free energy that has been exposed and then hidden by the inhuman entities that have directed the growth of human ingenuity for the last 300 years is so ridiculous it should not need to be exposed here. The truth is climate change is another controlled human evolution and if anything needs to be ended it is the exploration and use of oil and gas for crying out loud. Wake up people your are being blindsided again.snowballed etc!! | ||
| Charles Salerno | It's totally unconstitutional and government over-reach to ban buring wood in New York and/or the country. It was mentioned it could prevent heart attacks? Please. How about banning smoking cigarettes? How about banning over weight out of shape people? Let's ban beer? And donuts... While government pushes Americans over the edge, if they were REALLY concerned about the climate, wouldn't they address the biggest abusers? Shouldn't they go after China, India, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea instead of rural America? Another perfect example of pushing their agenda... I've read batteries for their big electric vehicle push will destroy the entire rainforest with the increase in mining... not to even mention the waste from batteries AND windmills. They must all own stock and take big donations from energy companies... unconstitutional and illogical. | ||
| Bruce Bluemel | Yet another unrealistic, ill advised law that is not based on science and statistical data. Making an enemy of energy is never a sound economic policy. Can you think of a more renewable resource than wood? Will we also outlaw the burning of underbrush that reduces the intensity and likelihood of forest fires in our goal of achieving zero emissions? Keep it up New York state, you will have a really green state once all of the tax paying citizens have moved out. | ||
| Olive Lynch | 1. Heat pumps do NOT work in low temperatures. My research shows heat pump installers recommend backup gas systems when installing heat pumps in cold climates. 2. The plan to switch huge demand over to electric, I don't see addressed: a. Can the network handle this load -- aka Texas blackout in high demand b. Where will the energy come from to power electric? i. Solar and Wind are not reliable ii. Solar, Wind, battery units NEED dirty mining and rare earth materials - this will cause environmental damage in other locations. iii. There are not enough copper mines to meet the demand of building more electrical cars, networks, etc. The demand will raise prices, causing electrical solutions to be out of financial release. iv. Where is the mitigate plan if everyone is reliant on electricity and there is a long-term blackout? Wintertime people dependent on electric heating will freeze v. Nuclear power would be the most reliable source of electricity, where would plants go, how would waste be handled? c. The transfer of energy from other fuels to electric is inefficient. It is more cost effective to heat/consume the fuels -- shouldn't the goal be to make heaters/cars using fuels reduce emissions further? 3. This plan will financially decimate the poor and middle class a. Landlords will retool and put the heat/power costs on the tenants. Electricity NOW is much more expensive than gas/oil b. Elderly people will not be able to afford to live in NY --- they will be forced to move elsewhere c. Any costs incurred by companies will be passed down to consumers. 4. Less vehicle miles a. Walking makes sense for the cities, COMPLETELY stupid for rural/suburb areas b. Walking/biking doesn't work if you are trying to transport children -- are people to bike their kids to school or the doctor in winter at 19 degree weather? This plan is pie in the sky unrealistic. | ||
| Gene Hecht | I think it’s ridiculous to ban heating houses with wood. I am totally against the idea. This is just making it more expensive to live in New York. Taxes keep going up. Heating fuels keep going up. It’s making it harder and harder for seniors to afford to live in New York. New York has no problem using incinerators to burn trash but they don’t want their residents to supplement heating their house and saving money by burning wood. | ||
| Gerald Possai | Who us the nut bag who wants to force us to use electric to heat homes. Do you not understand electric is the most expensive way to heat, producing electric also impacts the environment, how stupid do you think we are to let liberal New York city crazies destroy new york. Why not go help the world leaders in pollution like India, Russia and China. Leave NYS alone | ||
| Jon Cooke | We have had quite enough over reach from the communist State of NY. This latest attempt to push folks out of Upstate with these ridiculous wood burning restrictions is a massive joke and will be devastating to many NY"ers! Looking forward to a red wave here in NY when all the liberal trash in our government will be taken out for good... | ||
| Ken Barrett | I took the time to write this, I hope you take the time to read it. I do not support the limiting or banning of wood stoves in NY. I am in the forestry industry and we use left over wood to heat with. Wood is renewable and currently is the most affordable way for working families to heat their home. I cannot believe that wood causes more damage to the environment than kerosene, fuel oil or electric heat. Of these options (wood, kero ,oil or electric) wood is the only one that is found in nature. Additionally cutting firewood creates hard working children who will be hard working adults. A small element I’m sure desk sitters over look. Make your rules for NYC and leave upstate to its own way of life. In fact I’ll mention; let’s split the state. “If all the smart people live in Albany and NYC, then be your own state and maintain your lifestyles the way you choose. I cannot and will not comply with any type of ban of wood burning in any way shape or form. Signed: Disgruntled prisoner of NY state. | ||
| Keith Rosenberg | Why would we ban wood heat. I purchased a home with 28 acres of land that's wooded to use to heat my home my shop and my domestic hot water to conserve energy. It's a renewable resource and I'm benefiting all kinds of wildlife by taking damaged old and dead trees and creating you tree and vegetation for animals to eat and new regeneration. What happens if the power goes out which it does when a storms comes thru and it 20 deg out. How much more electric can we generate? Or can the current lines handle. My neighbor has a giant windmill 300 yards from my home and it's a noisy eye sore. When a slight breeze you can hear it in my home. If you burn clean dry wood your fine. Maybe we should all migrate when it cold like the geese and hummingbirds. Whomever votes for this should only ride a bicycle and should never be allowed to fly on a plane again. They should all get their head out of their A$$. | ||
| Paul Brookes | Heat pumps, heat pumps, heat pumps! They're great, they work, but they're too expensive. Massive subsidies are needed to make them cheap to install for NY homeowners. Also, the ones that work down into below freezing temperatures are super expensive. It would be a real shame if everyone moved over to air-source heat pumps that simply don't work for 3 months of the year when it gets cold here! Subsidies need to be heavily pushed toward high efficiency models that continue working at very cold temperatures, otherwise everyone will still need a gas furnace for backup in Jan/Feb. Bike lanes and transport - frankly what we have now sucks! A moratorium on all road building and lane widening would be a good start. Also a complete overhaul of our road building laws and regulations. I'll say it in caps because it's important - PAINT ON THE ROAD IS NOT BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE!!! Sharrows, green paint, and all those other lazy approaches are completely useless, especially when it snows and the plow just pushes the snow into the bike lane. Protected bike lanes (with a concrete kerb, separated from the main traffic) are essential and must be part of any and all new development or road refurbishment programs. | ||
| Barbara Robidoux | Too many residents in NNY depend on wood as primary heat source! A lot of us are already leaving this over regulated over taxed state… if you pass this you will push thousands more out of NYS | ||
| Dallas Ward | I have a pretty old house it’s an old plank house the cavities in the walls are only an inch thick there is no room to put insulation inside the walls the house was given to me by my mother as I won’t be able to afford another house I have had a brand new furnace put in about five years ago But I cannot afford to use it we use it a little bit for when the woodstove goes out at night but primarily we heat our house with wood half the time people give me wood as I have a hard time making ends meet if you make it this way I will not be able to keep my house warm and I cannot afford another house I cannot afford to renovate this house so no matter what you do I’m gonna heat with would cause it’s all I have I don’t have no other way around it Unless the governments gonna give me free heat ha ha Ha Yeah right this is a New York State all they do is take | ||
| Bret Martin | I'm not reading an 800+ page report aimed at dealing with an overblown issue. But I do understand home heating with wood is mentioned in the report as well as agriculture and forestry issues. Do not for a second think that any mandate from NYS will stop rural NYers from using a carbon neutral, renewable home heating source like wood. I will not comply with any such nonsense. And the same goes for ridiculous mandates put on the ag and forestry sector. We are all in favor of a cleaner environment, but in a state already overburdened with taxes and regulation, more of the same will not be welcomed. | ||
| Robin Homan | A comment on moving towards heat pumps in all homes after 2024. Increasing dependency on electricity to heat a home does not eliminate carbon emissions but rather places strain on a resource that uses fossil fuel burning to produce electricity. Unless we solve the energy storage problem ( battery technology) our ability to rely on clean " electricity " will not be effective. More legislation should encourage improvement on individualizing a homes ability to produce and store their own electricity ( tax incentives for those who create their own wind, water power to supply their family) will reduce the distance and resistance limitations transporting energy and reliance on an electric grid. The recommendation to use heat pumps and limit an individual from purchasing a wood burning stove in NYS, is like playing chess with only consideration of one move at a time. I expect our legislation to think 6-8 moves ahead. | ||
| Ed Caccavale | Who will compensate me for value lost on my home, if the two fireplaces are rendered illegal? | ||
| Steve Bowman | What we need is a public works program that gives people average workers a job with A LIVING WAGE without requiring people to get a masters degree beforehand. All I keep hearing is the jobs that the climate change is going to bring I just don't see it show me some actual result all I hear is a lot of political hot air plenty of money for the corporations but nothing for the workers people are fed up with the talk let's see something positive happen instead of well here's some 15$ an hr jobs we created and by the way will be voting on those tax increases at midnight surprise surprise I understand climate change is real but u have to come up with a plan that is fair not just a money grab for the corporation's | ||
| Reuben Barkley | (Heating with wood). Im 51 and grew with a wood in my home and still burn wood. People have cooked and heated their home's since the beginning of time. My parents also heat with wood. Let alone the exercise and the teaching of my kids responsibility to the process of prepping the wood to be used in the winter. My Dad is 78 and enjoys the processs and the physical labor of cutting and stacking it as does someone going to a gym everyday. Emissions. Really..not enough room to go down that road here. Save the trees. Ok. Look what the State has allowed the lumber companies to do to the western ADKs. Clear cutting thousands of acres.....THOUSANDS OF ACRES!! I hike and hunt those woods....It's disheartening to see what is being done. Want proof...let me know. So...the people who would rather enjoy the warmth and smell from heating with a woodstove...we are more intune with the environment and knowledgable than a Highly Educated Economist!!! | ||
| Bobbi Cain | This is a Draconian attempt to force everyone to electric heating, cars everything. What happens when the electrical grid goes down in the middle of winter? You Freeze! That's what. Electric power is unreliable and the technology is not there, it is in it's infancy. Also with it we are at the mercy of Communist China! | ||
| Ryan Monaco | American citizen | Leave the wood burning alone you --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your just trying to get people to pay even more to heat our homes so you all can go ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Sheena Smith | Banning wood as a heat source will negatively impact thousands of impoverished individuals who do not have the resources for alternative heat sources. This act is discriminatory towards the rural poor. It would be impossible to enforce. Not to mention the large amish community in our area. Start thinking about the way the other half live for once. | ||
| Frank Mancuso | EER | Climate change is a consequence of the sudden loss of phytoplankton, the carbon cycle engine. It's half gone in my lifetime due to PCB laced micro-plastic killing and displaying it. Before spending trillions on solar, wind and lithium trying to limit CO2 this State and county must address this. All other issues are moot, as phytoplankton goes all life will soon follow. | |
| Joan Leogrande | Riverhead | My name is Joan Leogrande I have Ra, Lupus and Sorgrens. Physically I work but its very painful and difficult. I am a born and raised long islander. Winters are harsh and.its important for me to have warmth. There is no help to replace my broke. Furnace and so I dealt with kerosene and saved and purchased a pellet stove cost with is about 1300.00 to 1500.00 now where electric is the highest in the nation I am being told no fuels no wood and so how do I pay to to heat my home? Will you redo my electric? Who exactly are you yo make all these decisions that can and will hurt millions. Burning wood supplies warmth and natural heats and the aroma not smell is one that is soothing to many. Government needs to stop. This is insane and not well thought out. Hypocrites as people like AOC tell us what to do and then go to Florida to party and hang with out a mask. I expect officials to follow what the people want. I will be voting no and what must be understood is you are to cease with omni busing any bills. Enough and realize the people are not happy. You take away and have no solutions. | |
| John Rudolph | Pushing for electrification of our society including making all appliances in a home electric and doing away with wood buring heat sources is a flawed plan on many fronts. The two main reasons that quickly come to mind are resiliency in emergency situations and cost of living for residents. Doing away with wood burning heating sources would affect many low income families who primarily heat with wood that they harvest themselves. There is also a large number who make their living or extra income by harvesting and supplying firewood. This also contributes to good stewardship of our forest and proper management of these forests. Allowing the ban on wood burning appliances and forcing new construction to go electric has serious implications for ours states homeland security and emergency preparedness. The electrical grid in rural areas of the state is on poor condition and having sources of heat and cooking that is independent of the grid is important. NYSDHSES's Emergency Preparedness courses teach citizens to be prepared and self sufficient in any emergency situation so that we can take care of ourselves and these two proposed regulations, and possibly others make being prepared harder for citizens. The regulations can also put preparedness out if reach for many lower income citizens that will need to purchase extra items in order to be self sufficient in any emergency situation. Citizens would need to purchase alternate heating sources and ways to prepare food and when they can’t it will put stress on local and state resources when they are already stressed and spread thin. Please reconsider making these regulations and try to find other ways to meet these goals. . | ||
| Dennis Richard | Who the f--- are you to ruin people's lives? People can barely afford to live in this nazi state as it is. Ban firewood? Ban gas powered engines? Who can afford all that? You gonna put a new furnace in everyone's home? You gonna buy everyone a electric car? You gonna pay for electric car chargers for everyone's home? How are people supposed to live in downtown areas and have a car? Think our power grind can handle it? I really hope someone sues your a---- and i really hope the people come together and vote your dictatorship a---- out. 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕 | ||
| Ginger Otis | Single mother of 3 | I am a single/disabled mother of 3, and I can't afford any other way to heat my old house to keep us all warm..we have propane back up but I am on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay the outrageous prices that companies want for propane...if you pass this law, which is ridiculous and tells people what they can't do in their own home, it will be a choice of either food or heat for us!!! | |
| Abraham Rudy | Please consider how uncomfortable forced air is compared to radiant heat. Especially for people with asthma or who are sensitive to dry air, forced air heating is a horrible alternative to radiant heat. | ||
| Kathy Markey | Unbelievable!!! I have many Amish in my county. Has this been visited. How on earth does this effect them. | ||
| Eric Cornwell | Wood is carbon neutral. We cut it down, burn it, and then it regrows. That's carbon neutral. You should be focusing more on the non carbon neutral. Planes, cars, natural gas, propane. Eliminate those sources of carbon and you eliminate any release od excess carbon. | ||
| Patrick Villnave | I mean seriously? Do you have any idea how many people will be pissed off and likely leave this state if your proceed to attempt banning wood burning? I’m the true north country we are completely forgotten and it seems like the 4-5 cities in this crap state try and dictate for the rest. Knock your crap off before you completely drive the rest of us to different states. | ||
| Karen Rua | Only in NY! Thats why most want to leave this state. I guess NY will now pay for my home heating oil or electric.? Who would every even think such a thing up. I hope to exit the state soon after my whole life here. All government wants to do is make more laws and make it more difficult for the people to live and stay here. | ||
| Gloria Chaves | I do not believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity or to our state. There are natural changes to the climate that occur, and have occurred, throughout the ages of the earth. In my lifetime there were warnings about global cooling! I do not believe climate change is dangerous, nor do I believe that we can change the climate. Of course, we should care for and preserve the natural resources of our planet, but to frighten people with dire warnings and to mandate ridiculous bans and alterations to our lives is unconscionable. Work to clean up our waterways and decrease air pollution but do not destroy our economy or the economies of third world countries with warnings about climate change inundating the world. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. | ||
| Timothy Schott | Wood is a renewable resource!! I heat my home with wood which is much cheaper than any other fossil fuel. I recently purchased a new outdoor stove with the new EPA certifications (old outdoor stove needed repair). Wood is a cleaner fuel source than any other. When I was considering a new heat source, it took me several months of research. When comparing propane, electric, wood and corn, the wood was still by far the best bang for your buck. Looking ahead, everything is going electric. Thats good that we are putting less strain on our infrastructure by using less on small appliances and using LED bulbs, but here is the kicker, you want to build electric cars, what goes into them? Now we are going to put more of a strain on our infrastructure by using chargers that require 40, 60 possibly 100 amps to do this. We don't have the personnel (manpower) in this day and age to fix the aging power lines in a timely fashion. Thanks for your time. | ||
| Christopher Alejandro | My own | I believe New York State by far are stripping the rights of people in New York, cuomo had done nothing but diminished the joy of being a New Yorker, I’ve live in this state all my life and watched it deteriorate from high taxes laws that shouldn’t be in place that where passed in the darkest of nights. He did a lot more harm than good as many leave to go else where a town and just as many others have flourished are now become dead, increasingly drug abused poverty and crime individual due to no jobs or taxes too high forcing people to be homeless due to increasing rent … Now, Now y’all want yo get rid of gas atvs and get rid of wood burning or all fossil based fuel for recreational or heating alternatives because of what he had felt is right to make it into law.. y’all work for the people by the people and Democratic states want nothing but to control the people to be communists.. This is not ok and has everything to do by being a tyrannical government period.. I know just as others will stand will not obey this as alternative heating for camping and most importantly for homes in the winter months which is a must and necessary for a way of life so I suggest you talk amongst yourselves and remove this b----- | |
| John Hancock | Politicians need to stop ruining our state. We can not get rid of oil and gas heat by 2030. That can just never happen! Our electric grid in upstate is outdated and unreliable and does not have the capacity to support every house hold being heated by heat pumps. The upstate counties are already economically repressed as is, and now these over paid politicians want the average joe to dish out $20-30k for a heat pump system!? I am a HVAC manager, I know all about heat pumps and we install them all the time for supplemental, I repeat, SUPPLEMENTAL heat. Heat pumps are a wonderful thing but the technology and price of them just aren’t a feasible solution. Our climate is far to cold to get rid of oil and gas, please do not destroy our state by pushing these far left agendas! Oil and gas can be phased out slowly in the next 50 years, not less than 10 years! | ||
| Barbara Ziarno | We are a society of people so concerned about fair treatment, social injustice and environmental concerns. If you are truly concerned about any of those Why are you proposing a law that would hurt and punish and already financially strained population living north of Albany? Why are you considering this ridiculous law that would end wood furnaces or burning wood in general? This country emits the lowest carbon admissions of any other country in the world. Why are you trying to punish those, especially those living north of Albany, by forcing them to spend money they can not afford to heat their homes? For years numerous families living in the north country have heated their homes solely with wood. Some have no other source of heat than wood. Of all the problems in this country and especially NYS, why the focus on such an asinine law? | ||
| Marjorie Roberts | We have used a combination of fuel oil and wood to heat our home for over 50 years. We live in the country and have on occasion been without electric power for as long as 3 weeks. If we did not have our woodburning stove to rely on, we would have had major damage many times over. If the roads are impassable, there could be loss of life without heat. Please consider all regions of New York State, not just the cities | ||
| S. Letarte | Hopefully we heard incorrect rumors regarding efforts to outlaw wood heating in the home. Affordable electric heat is an oxymoron. I will join the growing torrent of those leaving the state if such a law is passed for home heating. | ||
| Ed Mall | The thought of reducing carbon by going to electric is Ludacris. Most electric is produced by burning coal and not renewable at this time. In fact has anyone figured out how to recycle the solar panels yet or is the energy used in making them wasted by throwing them in the landfill when they're done? I agree that actions need to be taken but whom is working on curbing China India Russia and all the other heavy use community in the world? We could have a net negative carbon footprint and they still belch away. Lastly I use wood which is renewable and sustainable. Oil isn't. You won't let us use natural gas which is efficient. Propane is akin to being useless with the heat out put. Now you want us to go to electric generated by coal. Who's going to pay to upgrade the grid? What are the carbon savings? More importantly who's going to pay for the changes to my homes and the cost difference between my current renewable system and the regulated non renewable carbon using coal to electric system? | ||
| Mendel Telo | Bus driver | ||
| Ron Dep | Just more control ,Florida here I come | ||
| Robert Goss | As someone that tried to go green 5 years ago after removing fuel systems and gas heaters from my homes and replaced with electric baseboard heaters as advertised it would be more cost efficient it was a huge lie. I’ve watched my cost triple even quadruple now standing at a hefty $600 a month and watching solar destroy our farms in upstate New York. And National grid get richer while being denied reasonable price for self sufficient homeowners. No one can put solar on their homes when big tech is paying top dollar to destroy our crop lands instead. This winter I was forced to cut the power off to my heat install pellet stoves at $2000 each and a pallet of pellets each to keep warm after having a $6500 electric bill last winter for only 3 months. Stop the insanity and bs of giving big companies our tax dollars to destroy our state to power the useless city that’s been cancerous to upstate for 100 years or more. Ps use a heat determination gun on the rise in temperature above solar farms compared to none solar farms we are going to heat our earth 5 times faster say no to solar say no to fuel burning use our hydro power | ||
| Cathy Kelly | Cathy Kelly | I don't think it's right we have a right to be able to heat the way we want and with what we chose . I have propane furnace that's brand new we got rid of our oil furnace . Oh Gas power leaf blower we'll come to our property and see if you can go electric here . We pushmow our grass we use leaf blowers for there's too much here to Rake what are you guys thinking . Battery operated things won't work here either . Stop this nonescence this is making me sick sick of our country where is Free in the word Freedom we are not you are all controlling us now . We better comply or else . | |
| richard forsey | Performance truck & auto | I cant believe that you would consider banning burning wood for heat or campfires ,what is wrong with you this is America we all love to sit around a camp fire as family time and we cut up dead wood in the woods for fires and heat. We dont want to here any more about climate change .You are destroying our country with your bs scam solar power and wind nightmare you need to leave things alone OR WE WILL BE LEAVING THIS STATE IN DROVES many of my friends agree we will move to Texas or Florida , If you keep up your madness we will vote out every Democrat in office. Climate change is a natural so stop your madness or we will vote you out. | |
| Norman Turner | So you morons have driven up the price of gas and oil and now want to discontinue the burning of wood? You have got to be kidding. Many people that can't afford gas and oil depend on wood for their heat. Let's go Brandon, stop turning our state into your communist utopia. | ||
| Donald Lipker | Select or enter | I appreciate that there seems to be consistent talk of managing and using wood as an efficient and renewable heating source. However since it never seems to be directly addressed; I would like to request that any plan regarding reducing emissions created from wood burning focus primarily on the development and accessibility of high efficiency wood burning systems; electrically assisted systems and especially systems that require no electricity or other energy source apart from wood. Wood burning heating systems, especially those that function completely on wood, offer great stability and resiliency in many communities (apart from the obvious advantage in emergencies/ power delivery failures) . No matter how well electric delivery ,generation and heating becomes, there are simply many more ways that those systems can fail, and the cost of maintaining and repairing them could be financially prohibitive and or burdensome to many. Education on how to properly manage and heat with wood in the most efficient way would result in savings on the consumers end (more heat for equal or less monetary outlay) and positive environmental impacts (higher efficiency means less pollution). Thank you. | |
| Karen Castle | Why is my biggest question.?¿ You go after the working class and people that are having a hard time. Would a pellet stove also be in this law?¿ NY is now putting up solar grids everywhere were is the energy going?¿ Who is paying for them?¿ We have two different locations within 10 miles from me. Not one Notice Sent to residents on the same street as the grid?¿ Will we be notified to attend the meeting on this climate Plan?¿ | ||
| Marcia Hallinan | I am asking that you PLEASE restrict fire pits in yards. When the weather gets nice enough to open windows the neighbors start burning in their pits. Many of us have to close windows because this immediately triggers difficulty breathing from allergiesor asthma. I've ended up on Prednisone treatment because of the extreme pollution drifting in into my air space. I've asked politely for people to consider this before burning. Some were very cooperative, others laughed. It's like being in a campground. There's been an alarming increase in in asthma in both adults and children. Please consider acting on this miserable pollution problem. Sincerely, Marcia Hallinan | ||
| Amy Gillette | I just want to say that getting rid of wood burning would hurt a lot of people. The Amish community is a huge factor in this. You want everyone to go electric but don't want to understand people's way if life. It's not just a fad , it has been this way for centuries. And what if the families that can't afford to switch to electric heat ? I used to have it and my monthly bill was way over $300. I now use kerosene and my electric is only$100 a month. You need to consider more that just numbers. You are losing families in NY because of all the BS that goes on and considering we are one of the highest taxed states I say enough is enough. | ||
| Richard Mason | USS Wayward Raft | I think that, that "no wood burning in homes" policy is a great idea and beneficial to the environment and our health. Yet there's one problem: "Don't Tread On Me" and "Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death" ideals are dying in this country, especially, ESPECIALLY in the younger generations. I personally would rather have the choice to burn toxic lead to heat my home rather have yet another government oversight destroying my American freedoms. | |
| John Doe | I’ll just start burning shingles or plastic to keep my house warm you asses have no right to tell me what I can do on my property | ||
| Debbie Schmeiderwind | I ask you to vote against all climate changes. I am especially against limiting wood as heat and the elimination of the use of gas as heat. Also, we need to keep our gas powered cars running. The elimination of millions of vehicles would certainly do more damage to our environment. | ||
| Diane Hamilton | Laws that decrease burning firewood is not going to fix the problem. In early years, colonial America burned wood as a heat source for their homes both inside and outside and there was no harm to the environment. You need to hit big industry that puts toxins in the air we breathe, not home owners who are saving energy by using wood heat. It is less costly and efficient than electric or gas. Why NY? Other states that are colder and have rural homes without electricity have never considered this. It sounds like the state government is trying to control what people do. | ||
| Dave Rycheck | All that we ever hear is we follow the science ,we follow the science By our governing class. Maybe it's time you start actually looking at the science in the fact that elevated carbon does nothing but cause trees and plants to increase their photosynthesis. Just the fact that you use the term climate Justice in your study Shows how ignorant you really are. What's the next step? Are you going to bring a lawsuit against the Sun for being hyperactive? Yes this is real, try studying some Science about the Sun. Yes believe it or not it can cause temperatures to rise!!!! Here's an idea, Go to the bookstore and buy the book entitled Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. This guy used to be the poster child for all things global warming and saving the Earth. Listed on the Complete List of Environmental Heroes by Time Magazine in 2008. Soon you'll find out he knows more about this subject than you'll ever know and even he realizes that all you're doing is teaching a False Global Alarmism. Do some research and start using your brain . And Stop picking on people who want to heat their home with firewood in the winter!! | ||
| Cynthia Manzi | Global warming is a farce. Gas and oil are less harmful to the environment than batteries that dont disintegrate. Solar doesn't provide enough energy. Try nuclear..much cleaner with less emissions. | ||
| Stephen Chilton | Taxpayer/boss | Who is on this climate Action Council? Who pays your salary for these opinions? How much will the solutions cost? How many jobs will be lost due to the restrictions on certain industries? Who pays for all of this when or if it becomes law, private funds or public funds? Why would you ban wood stove? How do you plan to make it affordable? | |
| Edward Visconti | Taxpayer | Wow just wow are you people looking for more than 300,000 TAXPAYERS to leave this state again !! Come on Man!! upstate people have been heating with wood for longer than your ancestors have been here! Let up on liberal nonsense,what's this an arrangement with The gas and electric companies to push this! Us retired people can't afford this state anymore. | |
| Ronald Easter | If the government really wants to cut emissions park all there private jets and sell all their house but one. | ||
| Theodore Snavlin | Government, as usual attempting to force more mandates. I do not trust the leadership and could see me being to wood being used for heat and also for campfires. The push for more electricity is ridiculous, when there is/ was a tremendous amount of cheap efficient gas. Please give specific stats on heath cases definitively affected by carbon emissions. Requiring new buildings/ business to only use electrity will stop many businesses from coming to NY, not to mention the high outrageous taxes. There have been many environmental changes in NY over the past years. I doubt the projected figures are correct. Electric cars are a man cement towards less emissions with the increase in waste due to the batteries. Little steps that people can work with is a better solution. | ||
| David Ryerson | Mr. | I thing it is utterly ridiculous to terminate the use of burning firewood for heating your home.I dont even heat my home I use expensive oil.That is 50% more expensive than bbn it was a year ago.Also banning natural gas is ridiculous it is one of the cleanest burning fuels there is.As far as EV cars go you guys are nuts I will never own one in my lifetime .I cant wait to get the hell out of New york 300 k left last year just to Florida alone.Im all for a healthy environment but you guys have gone to far.America is one of the cleanest nations in the world.China Russia India all those nation are the one polluting the world not us .So NY has to pay for their crimes This state is a disaster That's why I cant wait for 2022 and beyond when I get the hell out of here . | |
| Stewart Jennifer | This is extremely ridiculous, you cannot tell people what they can and cannot do with the land they own and pay taxes on. I know in the rural area I am from, there are more wood stoves and wood sustaining heat sources here than not. And to act like you care about areas that might be poor or underdeveloped, do you plan to pay for a complete heating system change in all homes? All I see is wanting more people on propane which is filthy in its own right and no one can afford it. Also here in our area, electric goes out, if we have everything electric, we lose heat. Sometimes for more than a day or 2. I'm sorry but this whole go green has gotten way out of hand! Our government cannot afford any of this stupid s---, and I guarantee it will end up causing us home owners and tax payers more in the long run just like it always does! | ||
| Linda Reed | It is important how far reaching the effect on restricting wood burning would cause. We built our home 20 years ago with a fireplace to cut the cost on home heating. We know families that heat their homes solely with wood furnaces. Please think about how much financial damage you will be putting on us. If you want to help the environment go after the big manufacturers who still continue to pump out massive quantities of air pollution. While you are at it go after them for polluting our waterways and land. Thank you | ||
| Carrie Lester | THEIVES, just like the PANDAMIC trying to find ways to line their pockets. ALSO TRYINGTO PAVE THE WAY FOE THE CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA. ALL SCUM. | ||
| Paul Turner | First, you spit out 800 pages and give me 2000 characters to respond. I use to write business strategies. We needed approval so we wanted folks to read them. We developed 3 decks. 3 pages, 30 pages, 100 pages. If you really want support vs. just pontificating, you could consider that. Minimally, take out all the filler. Years ago, I worked for theNYS health dept. A senior mgr took my reports and drew lines through stuff and pointed out the meaning hadn't changed. Next, rural vs suburban/ urban. You want to focus on rich vs. poor, when in fact, population density really is the driver. I can't car pool. I live on a dirt road off a dirt road and drive 7 miles to work( retire, but that's what I used to do). Next, are the members of your committees serious. What have they personally done. We've installed geothermal, solar, and would buy an electric car except they are not available, and are still overpriced. We have a small farm. I've had people complain that my cattle fart, polluting the earth. My woods eat more carbon than my cattle make, but no one seems to know that. Rural communities have trouble heating with electric. Their isn't enough capacity in the wires, and at .11/kilowatt, it's really not affordable. You speak of good paying jobs. Perhaps you should watch solar panels being installed. One electrician, and a bunch of unskilled workers who drive the frame, bolt it together, including the panels. A high school graduate with no training could do this with a day or two of training. You talk about a huge increase in jobs. When doing budgeting in a business, biggest costs were personnel. If you add all that labor and accomplish the same goal, the cost will go way up. Most of the labor is transitional. ie. my solar panels should set there for over 20 years requiring minimal maintenance. The installer doesn't even recommend a maintenance contract. My geothermal was installed by furnace installation types. More skills required. | ||
| James Ackerman | Did the residents get to vote on the Climate Act on July 18 2019. And see what there opinions were. I doubt it. I hope this isn’t a paid position. I would like a answer from your group. Thanks. Just too let you know I’m not for the act. | ||
| Herbert Strunk | I hope you realize that burning wood is more beneficial that allowing the trees to rot. They give off alot more greenhouse gases that way. In addition the material that makes n95 masks is pypropolyne which is derived from refining gas. It it the waste that comes from making gas for vehicles. Cars & animals make carbon monoxide used to make trees,plants live, in turn they give us oxygen. Use common sense before enacting any of these plans that in turn hurt more than help. Wanna do something constructive, put the criminals in jail, stop using CRT to create more victims, this is why, along with high taxes, mismanagement and politicians that don't care what their constituents want good people and jobs are fleeing the state for places like Florida. Let the cops do their jobs, criminals need jail not a pat on the head and a oh you poor thing, while their manhandling the elderly & disabled and now going after kids. Smash and grab city, is that what NY wants to be known for? | ||
| Ken Brockett | I am retired on a fixed income. I have been heating The family home with wood for almost 50 years. I cannot afford to change to heat with something else. We often lose electric in the winter time so it is the only source of heat I enjoy going out into my woods to cut up firewood off of my property to heat my home I do not want that changed Please leave the woodstove alone so that I can keep using it in the future !!!!!’n | ||
| Wayne Canorro | Retiree - veteran - taxpayer | My brother and I own approximately 98 acres in Southern Lewis county , from which I have cut processed and burned firewood ( at my home in East Syracuse ) for the last 45 years . This is a major source of recreation for me ( I’m 75 ) . Of course I want to have a safe clean environment but when I see the wild fires out West that burn for months and this passed year I could smell and see the haze from them , not to mention the soot that comes out of the industries to our West . I say to myself , “would my state penalize me to try and lower the minuscule greenhouse gasses that I release “ ? It’s definitely easier to pick on the little guy but do you think it’s the right thing to do ? | |
| Georgia Beatty | Please do not pass a law that wood cannot be burned. We save a lot of money by burning wood my husband cuts up dead trees and trees that have come down due to storms. The logging industry would also be affected since trees that cannot be used for lumber are turned into firewood | ||
| Aaron Burnett | 1.) Please send the locations and dates where the hearings will be held. 2.) Please send the electrical power data as follows: present consumption by month future consumption after plan is implemented. 3.) Please indicate the estimated increase in electrical cost once the plan is implemented. 4.) Please show the percentages where this zero carbon increase will come from, hydroelectric, wind, solar or nuclear. | ||
| Derril Minardo | People, citizens, the public, are supposed to invest more of their own money in electric heating alternatives like heat pumps in order to "fix" the states GHG emissions. The cost of electricity (all utilities in actuality) supplied to the public is rising sharply year over year. Costs are masked by electric providers shifting numbers around, and charging astronomical "delivery fees". Allegedly studies put average residential electric bill at $100 per month. I couldn't begin to comprehend how that number is being regarded as a serious figure as I am sitting here in bellow freezing temperatures, where natural gas and wood pellet heat are by and large the most prevalent heat sources, and a majority of my neighbors and coworkers are around $200/month electricity bills in the winter. There is zero chance people will divert money from hobbies or vacations just to get crushed even more on their monthly bills. Then you have to start coupling that with the rising cost of gasoline and the transition to electric vehicles (which further add to that growing electrical demand and increasing electrical price for the consumer). This whole plan is more money out of the pockets of NYS residents, and financial incentives for power companies. The best measure I could find to help consumers was CCA's, which is grossly inadequate considering the increase in electric usage homes would have. I could go on for hours about this, but the long and short of it is that this should be placed in a desk drawer until the state can fix bigger issues, like why taxes are going towards helping a billionaire build a football stadium instead of fixing infrastructure or improving schools. This going into effect any time soon will exacerbated the exodus of NYS residents. | ||
| Fredo Cuomo | All NY Freeze in the dark. Worst state in the nation! | ||
| Benjamin Deltoro | Dear Sir/Ms. We are senior citizens who currently heat with wood pellets due to economic retraints and need for warmth. For all future senior citizens, they may have to suffer lost of heat , health isssues, and sooner deeaths causeed by lack of warmth. Then, there are the other alternatives for being a NYS resident: Livingi unnder the poverty line so Gov. will take care of you; Economicly sound/well off; And , lastly, LEAVE NYS for sounder guidelines. As of this note to you, New York leads the nation in out-migration of residents, with 126,000 people leaving last year and over one million in the past decade.†I know that my comments mean nothing to you. I guess we may soon be one of those 126,000 who left on 2020. Ben and Carol Deltoro | ||
| Sandra Beardsley | I back the climate plan but have some concerns. As a poor and retired person in a rural area I have no access to affordable heating. We use a wood pellet stove, very low emissions. I fear that being banned and we have no gas lines here. We can't afford a furnace, it's a frightening issue. If grants were available for solar or another renewable we'd change in a minute! | ||
| Mark Romig | Chapter 5 is called "Overarching Purpose and Objectives..." A better word would be "Overreaching." I started to read the Scoping Plan until I realized it is an 857-page manifesto. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is a misguided use of taxpayers' money. I would not support something that is going to remove freedoms from people, in order to satisfy a group of activists. By the way, the term "climate justice" makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. | ||
| Wayne Haight | "Climate justice" specifically related to wood burning for heat with "rising temperatures, human lives—particularly in people of color, low-income, and Indigenous communities—are affected by compromised health, financial burdens, and social and cultural disruptions". I had to go a ways to find exactly what this mouthful meant. This is an oxymoron. For example they want to ban wood burning within indigenous communities. Why, because as low-income communities these folks solely rely on wood for domestic heat. So now they want to make their lives worse than imaginable. Lets take away their heat source to make things more just. They will appreciate what the elites are doing for them by keeping them cold. This rule makes no scene at all! | ||
| Jenna Heitman | Only allow EPA certified wood stoves to be sold in NYS. Any appliances or furnaces replaced by NYSERDA EMPOWER NY assistance program should be electric. They helped me with a gas water heater which I'm extremely grateful for but it still creates more emissions. Electric is the way to go. | ||
| Jenna Heitman | I suggest getting rid of all charcoal firepit grills at all state parks and beaches. Cooking with coal is not only carcinogenic to our bodies but also creates toxic air/pollution which can induce heart attacks and stroke. Being in nature is supposed to smell fresh and free from pollution. The charcoal firepit/grills are outdated and a hazard to humans and the environment. My other suggestion is a program that covers old model vehicle exhausts or rusted vehicle exhausts or cut pipes in ny to be fixed free of charge or low cost depending on income. This will get a number of people and college kids to take care of that exhaust spewing toxic pollution all thru our towns which can wreak havoc on the vascular system and endocrine system. I know this because I was once young and dumb driving around which a faulty exhaust because I didn't know how bad it was for me or others to be breathing in and it was low on my priority list being a college kid in school/working trying to get by. I also have autoimmune issues and definitely blame driving with bad exhausts a bit for my health issues. I can't even be around any exhaust without my body spazzing out. I hope this will help create cleaner air for new yorkers. I also think fireworks should go back to being banned. The poor wildlife all summer in Chautauqua County gets terrified and hit by cars way more than they should from the constant fireworks all year. Not only that but it's toxic to our water ways and air and creates noise pollution and traumatic for pets and veterans. Not to mention the dangers like fire hazards and amount of people that hurt themselves or others with fireworks. It should not be tolerated in residential areas at all but we don't have a DEC police force patrolling to help. Which is another thing I think we should have more of. DEC patrol. Create more jobs and crack down on people burning trash, diesel trucks with exhaust pipes cut improperly, idling commercial vehicles unnecessarily, etc. | ||
| Joseph Jackson | Please don't consider the banning of pellet stoves or wood-burning stoves. This is how many of us have gotten through New Yorks's harsh winters for centuries. | ||
| Beth Trombley | Don’t stop campfires. We’ve lost enough in life. Let us have some relaxing entertainment | ||
| Alice Smith | All your policies and actions are great, but they're useless if they can't be enforced. Local governments continue to allow big developers and builders to keep destroying trees and green space for the sake of high profits. The environmental preservation has to start in every small and large community. However, elected officials totally disregard SEQRA rules when they allow all this destruction, and it's impossible for ordinary citizens to do anything about it. Ultimately, the DEC is just another big useless bureaucratic agency with a lot of nice ideas, but no real action. | ||
| Samantha Pries | I believe human composting as an alternative to burial or cremation would offer a greener more sustainable way to handle people making their final transition. There are bills pushing for this and I think they should be able to go through as a greener less costly way for people to handle their passing | ||
| Nicole Albro | Stop trying to ruin our state. Many upstate residents rely on wood burning and it is more natural than the devastation being caused by mining the heavy metals needed for the batteries to power the electric dream | ||
| Heà ther Andresen | I think it is highly unrealistic to think people can afford to switch fuel systems within homes, trees are are a renewable resource, wood is widely used (especially in the north country), more and more control is being exerted over people/limiting freedoms, the use of solar panels is not an option for many areas, same with windmills, does this also impact pellet stoves that are highly efficient? While I support protecting our environment and quest for other options for energy sources this is not acceptable. | ||
| Bill Habban | Nyserda is what needs to be abolished and quit pushing for ridiculous legislation that is more suited for the urban population and not realistic for the very large percentage of the state that is rural. | ||
| Andy Dudla | The proposal to ban wood burning, propane/gas and oil for heating purposes is absolutely absurd. I'd like someone in favor of this proposal to anser the following questions: 1. Please tell me why my new $5000 EPA certified catalytic woodstove would no longer be an acceptable way to heat my home. 2. Please tell me who will be reimbursing me the $5000 for my new woodstove, the $700 for new double wall stove pipe and the $2000 for the stainless steel chimney liner I have recently installed. 3. I will also need to be reimbursed the $8,500 for the new Generac whole house generator I recently purchased that runs on propane. 4. Please explain to me how people are going to heat their homes in the winter when we get a bad ice storm or snow storm that knocks power out for 3-4 days. Your electric heat pump solution runs off electricity, correct? 5. Please tell me when you plan on upgrading our infrastructure to handle the increased electrical burden from this propsal plus the burden from electric vehicles that you are also pushing in your agenda. Thank you, I'll be waiting for answers. | ||
| Patrick Chapman | If burning wood is banned you will not only be denying family's an affordable heat source, you will also hurt small logging companies who depend on those markets. | ||
| Gary Bradley | I heat my hunting cabin with wood. I cant afford to put in a new heater. Nor can i afford or able to have a gas line put in. This will hurt many like me. I vote and I swear to always vote out anyone passing these laws. | ||
| Carl malczewski | All wood burning should be banned in New York because of the chemical pollution in wood burning,we need trees to clean our environment not burn them | ||
| Darcy Bowen | This addresses the topic of wood burning home heat. This is a necessity in the rural upstate where electricity can be off for days or even weeks in sub freezing temperatures. A woodstove is a necessity for survival. Frozen pipes and water damage after an outage would be devistating. I'm sure NY Homeowners Insurance statistics could enumerate the percentage of wood and wood product heaters in the north country. The days and weeks the power was out in sub freezing temps could be found with the Utility Regulators. These two indicators would prove, without question, the woodstoves are a necessity and not open for debate. I strongly oppose any attempt to regulate woodstoves in private homes! | ||
| Gerald Hunter | New York State resident | Not in favor of putting a ban on wood burning stoves a lot of people heat with them in upstate New York this is not New York City please do not do this law. It’s just going to hurt people trying to get by please vote no thank you | |
| Philip Schmitt | None | My concern is allowing the use of wood stoves, we use are stove most days in the Winter in the Morning and Evening. It has helped us out in the event of power outages and when the Furnace has quit. We have made it threw many times without the Furnace working at times at 35 Below Zero. We are Retired and it would be a hardship for us to burn Kerosene all Winter as every Year is getting harder to get by. We need our Wood Stove to survive in the North Country along with a lot of the Neighbors. Thank You | |
| Bonnie Bowman | Your plan to outlaw wood burning for heat is idiotic. So many families and businesses depend on wood heat and could not afford the alternative. In our area, it is common to lose our electric power several times each year, so what would we do if we’re solely dependent on electric? My family also sells firewood, so the NYS Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would not only kill that business but also destroy people who heat with wood. How can you pass an act like this without the people’s vote? We vote NO! | ||
| Renee Hulbert | I have recently read that wood-burning stoves May be outlawed in New York State. If so, that would cause an economic hardship on me and my family. I am on a fixed income and woodburning is the most economical way to heat my home. If I had to spend money on fuel oil or propane I would have to choose between food medicines or heat. New York state does not make it easy for the elderlyTo survive | ||
| Michael Nye | To whom it may concern, I am writing to state my opinion on the ban of Firewood for heating purposes, I am opposed to the band. There is too many unfortunate people that do not have the means to heat their home with oil ,electric ,propane etc. in the past 40 to 50 years the homes that are being Built with fireplaces, it’s more of a aesthetic thing., and I believe the grid that means in youth as we speak, cannot carry the load of all electric home. For example the New York City grid has problems just on a hot day with air conditioning units running. So I would like to be on record saying that I am against any band of burning of wood. Thank you for your consideration and please do the right thing thank Michael | ||
| Regina Ellis | DO NOT ban wood burning in NY!! | ||
| Daniel Hogue | Town of Forestburgh, Supervisor | Good day, I am writing in response to address the proposed climate rules under consideration. As town supervisor in a rural remote town with aged infrastructure and elderly population I urge consideration of the impacts of some or these proposals. We have many residents with limited income that rely on cheap efficient heating from firewood and banning such will cause considerable hardship to a great number of residents not only in the town I represent but upstate as a whole. In addition the reliance of electricity to run many aspects of our life is a concern at this time due to the very real fact that our infrastructure is old and extremely unreliable. Hardly a month goes by that at least 1 part of my town is without electricity for multiple days on end. Many, as much as 85% on my residents have back up internal combustion generators. Banning or limiting such would severely jeopardize both life’s and properties. Thank you for allowing input Dan Hogue Supervisor, town of Forestburgh | |
| Lori Brooks | Mandating that all new single family homes need to have electric heat pumps in them instead of the owners choice of heating equipment is ridiculous. An energy efficient gas boiler is so much better to heat a residence, and is cheaper. Your regulations are just making home ownership harder and harder for the middle and lower class. | ||
| Harold Dunlap | Dunlap | The proposed ban of burning firewood in NYS is simply a ridiculous grab at a political environmental straw. The combustion of *ANY* material produces carbon- including coal, oil, natural gas. Life itself produces carbon by breathing. Most folks fail to understand that we're still coming off the last ice age. If humanity never existed, this planet would still be warming because of natural process. While we do need to curtail our impact upon the environment, this is not the answer. There are many, far more impactive sources of carbon that can be reduced using verified science from multiple sources. Many people in rural areas depend upon wood as a major, if not sole source of heat during the winter months. What are you proposing that these families will heat their homes with? Or will their heating bills be subsidized by another free giveaway at the expense of the taxpayers? I oppose such legislation and will actively campaign and vote against any elected candidate that supports this initiative. | |
| Mason Battaglia | I am wondering if you have considered Northern and western NY in a lot of these proposals. Wood burning is a great and inexpensive way to heat the home if you live in the middle of nowhere and have a low income. Also, you want to switch everything to electric. Great! But we still burn fossil fuels to make electricity in NY. Natural gas heating is very effective and efficient. It works when the power goes out. If we lose power for a day we can keep the furnace running. Is the grid ready for this much more power draw? Also minosplits work when it's chilly outside, but when it's 10 below they can not heat my house. A lot of these laws make sense for NYC, not up here. | ||
| Christopher Nowicki | My family and I are against any and all laws and regulations that hinder our ability to survive. BURNING WOOD keeps my family warm. PAYING astronomical amounts for electricity is not an option. WE ARE TAXED TO DEATH ALREADY!. I WILL BURN WOOD UNTIL I CANT LIFT A PIECE OF WOOD UP AGAIN! YOUR TYRANNICAL MEASURES ARE NULL AND VOID... YOU WORK FOR WE THE PEOPLE, YOU MUST FOLLOW YOUR CONSTITUENTS RECOMMENDATION. | ||
| Erin Ross | Hello, making wood burning stoves illegal in NYS will have a grrat negative impact on many many families in the VERY large state. This state encompasses more than NYC and wood burning heat is a much more cost efficient (and environmentally efficient) way than coal, oil and gas. Also since the sexual predator Cuomo did away with power plants where is the electricity coming from? COAL? | ||
| andrew thiel | burning wood to heat my home is my protected right to the pursuit of happiness. i cannot and will not afford to heat my house with any other means. unless you are going to install everything required to heat my home, (furnace, piping, and fuel supply) at no cost to me, i will not be heating my house with anything other than wood. how about take the freaking money your giving to all the illegal immigrants in this state and give it to the wood burners that pay taxes to install natural gas or propane in order to stay warm in the winter months. we don't even have an air conditioner because we cannot afford it or the electricity bill to run it. i sure as hell do not have the money to pay a monthly fuel bill. i own my own forest, participate with the equip program and therefore cut my own firewood (its called elbow grease and hard work) to heat my home. i also replant 200-300 trees every year since 2002, so please do not tell me how to heat my house. i will be burning wood till the day i die. | ||
| Mary Lentz | |||
| Geoffery Konis | Do not remove the most natural method of supplying cheap heat to the residents of the Adirondacks/northern ny. | ||
| Ed Stokes | I understand what the goal is however, I live in upstate NY where I heat with firewood, drive 80 miles a day for work When we lose electricity how do we survive? Where and when are all these magical electrical sources going to be available and if you live in the country how will they be effective. Putting all of you marbles in the electricity basket I feel is unwise. When storms hit like the ones you describe and the power is out how do we survive? It sounds like if you drive any amount of miles for work you will be punished. Well all those new technology jobs are not outside of the cities. People live long distances from work. Have an abundance of available wood to heat their homes. What happens in winter when there isn't enough wind or other methods of electricity? Your plan is not user friendly if you don't live in the city. I am totally against these ideas that are going to be mandated but the technology isn't their or well developed. What about disposal of batteries for electric cars or the Hugh blades from the wind mills. What about the damage to the earth getting the compounds to make the batteries. This plan does not consider those who choose not to live in a crowded city. There are things that can be done such as scrubbers for fire places that should be considered. Respectfully submitted Ed Stokes | ||
| Richard Peters | the Earth Wise Projects Group | “I†CAN HELP !!! AND, HERE’S HOW : Notes From the Mind Of : Richard Edward Peters, Jr. “[email protected]â€!!! [email protected] Telephone @/ (716) 338-7270 To Whom It Might Concern, “Things That “I†Could Accomplish†!!! Passive Energy : Sources, Systems, & Utilization Technologies : Note(s) - “Recycle, Reduce, Reuse†aka “Repurpose†!!! Repurpose - Offshore Oil Rig Platform Technologies Into Fresh Water Collection & Transportation Platforms (Ask Me How) ? Note(s) The “production†of Electricity can also be accomplished utilizing these technologies Residential (Full) Basement Foundations - Into - “Ground Based†Heating / Cooling Sources *** Note(s) - This Passive Energy Tech. can save the average homeowner 50 %, 75 % or more on Heating costs !!! And, up to 100 % on Cooling costs These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** These Tech.s use “No†moving parts *** Thus, “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements And, these Tech.s operate 24 hr.s day / 7 days wk. / 365 days yr. w/o fail !!! The average construction costs can be as low as $5,000.00 Plus per Residential Customer... “Far†below comparable Technology Costs *** i.e. “Finish Work†is not included !!! (Ask Me How) ? Residential South Facing Porches Into: Heat Producing, Heat Storing Greenhouse Additions These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** These Tech.s use “No†moving parts *** Thus, “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements (Ask Me How) ? Mini-Blind Technologies Into : Portable Thermosiphon Solar Collectors These Tech.s are Non-Polluting *** Thus, helping to eliminate Polluting Tech.s *** “No†to very little Maintenance costs These Tech.s have “No†outside Energy Requirements (Ask Me How) ? “Insulated†Vacuum Panels *** aka An “R-100†Building &/or Container Insulation Alternative “Zer | |
| John Gee | I see the term "Overarching" in another sense. Please put language in the bill that makes temporary emergency exceptions if power or propane availability is lost, so some people "justice" can be served, and they aren't freezing to death for this cause....and that mandating that a $100,000.00 solar system be installed isn't the only answer in a heating emergency. Thank you. | ||
| Artem Treyger | AMRO Forestry | I am disappointed to hear that CLC are considering reducing firewood use in NYS. These reductions are antithetical to reducing C pollution, as firewood is the most economical way of utilizing renewable bioenergy. The stated goal of ameliorating public health concerns goes beyond the scope of the act, and is counterproductive to the idea of reducing C emissions, certainly as the two alternatives are fully relying on fossil fuel consumption (NYSERDA report, 3/21): using natural gas and heat pumps for heating - latter moves the problem upstream to fossil-fueled power plants. Using fossil fuels is directly antithetical to the spirit and reason for CLCPA to begin with, as they are the primary cause of the climate catastrophe. I am in favor of using heat pumps to reduce fossil fuel use, but it is not as effective as NYSERDA may believe it is, both financially for owners or for climate. As an e.g., I own and use a geothermal heat pump - the initial cost of installation was $60K, which is more than the average family makes in the area that I live in over a year (approximately $52K). A lot of people have poor credit and are incapable of paying for this. Also, much of the population rents, and without massive financial assistance to landlords (still struggling due to non-payment during the COVID-related regulations), pumps will not be used. And, pumps use highly capable greenhouse gases that are prone to leaking into the atmosphere. In addition, firewood provides an important incentive to manage forests (both retaining them as forests), and provides an outlet for low-grade wood that will otherwise be retained as the main genetic stock while higher quality trees will be removed for sawtimber via high-grading and diameter-limit cutting. This will lead to reduced C sequestration and storage, as lower value wood does not accrue C as quickly, and usually loses it quicker due to decomposition. In other words, this is poorly thought out and should not be considered as an option. | |
| Erica Matthews | To limit wood burning in upstate would negatively impact people who use wood to partially or completely heat their homes. Just this week (1/4/22) we had friends return after business hours from a trip to find their oil birder wasn’t working. If they hadn’t had a wood stove they would have had to leave their home late at night to find a hotel (the closest town with a hotel is about 45 minutes from them) and risk having water pipes burst overnight. This would have been a large expense or impacted their home owners insurance tremendously. | ||
| Jacob Bartlett | The plan to eliminate wood burning stoves in homes will hurt a lot of people. It is my main heat source as the price of fuel oil and electricity are too high for me to be able to convert. The thought of “green energy†while clear cutting thousand of acres for solar fields by way of using machines running on fossil fuels is laughable. And the proposal of having to fill out a form whenever I choose to harvest my own wood is preposterous. It is the most reliable heat source you can find especially since if electricity goes out how will people heat their homes? This needs to get swept under the rug as our state government has once again looked out for downstate residents and completely spit in the face of upstate and rural residents. | ||
| Gregory Jones | I believe you will find that a tree rotting in the woods gives off the same amount of carbon as one burned. So leave people that heat their homes and buildings alone. If you want to lower world man made greenhouse gasses the only significant solution would be world population control. Even if you burdened everyone with cutting their emissions in half when the population doubles again you have done nothing. If politicians want any credibility with people they need to start this conversation. This planet has a limit on how many people it can support and we are already there. | ||
| Chris Jordan | We don’t want your crappy laws in upstate. Let us live how we choose. America is a free country not your testing site. Keep your downstate crap downstate. I pay enough in taxes I’m sick of paying for things I don’t want or need from you politicians. | ||
| Jennifer Autera | My family utilizes a wood burning fireplace insert to heat our home which significantly reduces our usage of oil or gas to heat our home, any ban against burning wood for heat would be absurd. As far as public health, I stand firm against any Covid vaccine mandate. My entire family had Covid when a vaccine wasn't available and it was a rough 2 weeks. We then decided to rely on our natural immunity. We have the omnicrom variant and it is literally no more than a cold. It's actually frustrating to be quarantined for 10 days as we feel fine. I would not want to put a vaccine that has no longterm data into my body when my body is clearly able to combat this virus. | ||
| Eric Grossman | It is unfathomable to me to think that you would outlaw wood stoves. The only wood stoves that currently meet the emission standard the EPA has released are wood stoves that need electricity in order to run fans to push the heat out. What about those with hunting cabins that have no electricity or gas? To mandate that the people of NY must rely on a utility company without any other options is ludicrous and a blatant infringement. The emissions released in the processing of natural gas, the trucking, and delivery of natural gas far out ways the emissions release from those that burn hard wood. I agree something needs to be done with emissions but putting that blame on everyday citizens is outrageous being that the numbers don’t lie. 15 companies world wide put out 70% of the global emissions. It isn’t random home owners that need to change what they’re doing. NY is doing it’s best to push out anyone not living in NYC, this just may be the last straw. Stop telling NY citizens what they can’t do and go after the actual problem. | ||
| David Fowler | I am extremely concerned about the distinct possibility of this state banning wood burning stoves, etc.. This is absolutely going to cause great hardship for many in the North Country. Personally I rely on it to heat part of my home. I simply cannot afford to use an alternative. How unfair and inequitable this is for many. This simply cannot be done. How dare this committee even suggest this Are you willing to pay for every person to overhaul their home heating to meet your arbitrary standards? It is over reach and frankly unjust. | ||
| Donald LaTray | I understand that the state has considered legislation to limit wood burning ( heating ) stoves. My family has used wood burning stoves to heat our homes for generations. We have cut our own wood because it is a renewable source for heating our homes. It keeps us from being reliant on oil and electric suppliers and the price fluctuation that comes with it. We the people that live in rural areas can not rely on the power companies and oil companies to keep us from freezing in the long winter months that we have. Every time the electric has gone out we only stay warm because of our wood heating, and we loose our power several times each winter. We will not sit back and be dictated to on how we must live. We will fight to keep our way of life. | ||
| SNAPPER PETTA | My concern is the attempt to eliminate home heating using wood stoves or outdoor boilers. Living in a rural area as we do, the majority of people heating with wood do so for financial reasons. If being able to heat your home with wood is taken away, I'm not sure how many people will be able to afford heat during our upstate NY winters. While I understand the need for providing healthy air and an environment where people can breath easily, people who can't afford to heat their homes will have their health suffer in other ways. All and all, I understand that all of these issues will require balancing many issues. In densely populated areas I can agree that the use of wood stoves might be detrimental but in open, rural areas where population is low and spread out, it should continued to be allowed. | ||
| Chris Podgorski | Chris Podgorski | This is right out of the New Green Deal Playbook. AOC is gonna love you!! This thing reeks of liberal democrat politically correct b------. California goes off the climate change deep end and New York follows. Instead of the woke fad of climate change, why doesn't DEC concentrate on FISH and wildlife?? Trout fishing in the Finger Lakes has gone dramatically downhill the last 10 years. Don't even get me started about the deer population in 8N...I have YEARS of bowhunter sighting logs to show the decline in deer sightings over the last 10 years. Don't worry, the auto insurance companies love you guys as do all the people you give so called nuisance permits to. Now, be good little liberal democrats and cram this b------ down the throats of New Yorkers and I don't mean that god forsaken s------ called New York City. You wanted comments well, there ya go. Now you can hit the delete button and say oh boy no one opposes what we are going to force upon the taxpayers. | |
| Megan Gibson | The proposal of reducing and eliminating wood burning and burning of fuel oil is a drastic measure to impose. This would impact many people, especially in upstate New York, who have no other option than to burn wood or wood pellets, especially considering the current inflation rates on all items. How would people be expected to afford to heat their homes? By changing to electric what happens when the power runs out? Generators run on fuel oil but if that is no longer available how would people survive? This is something to consider greatly before enacting it. The city folks have access to shelters for emergencies that arise but upstate folks often do not and are left to their own resources. We experience extreme cold temperatures in the winter. This could have tremendous negative impacts on so many families and I hope this will be reconsidered in a logical manner. | ||
| Stephen Gloo | In the effort to be world class and cutting-edge, the act sets unrealistic goals using technology that doesn’t exist. Unattainable goals destine the plan to failure. It is worth reminding the bureaucracy that New Yorkers are the highest taxed citizens in the country and negative population growth will be exacerbated by driving up the costs of transportation and home heating. Specifics: zero emission heavy trucks only exist as an engineering experiment. converting buildings currently heated with natural gas to electric heat will drive the cost to heat beyond affordability for most homeowners. Further, the conversion will require the complete replacement of the power distribution system to handle the load. Wind and solar will remain simply supplemental sources until we acquire 24 hour sunshine and grand storage systems. | ||
| Jim Kervin | My family depends on wood for our heating of our home, are you going to pay our fuel and conversion cost for the future? We use wood from our own property so again are you going to pay our heating bills in the future? I vote no to any changes that affect residential firewood burning. | ||
| John Ober | The very idea of restricting the use of firewood as an element of heating our homes is a blatant infringement upon our constitutional right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Individuals are quite capable of being self-reliant, regarding home-heating, in New York State, as long as we can use firewood. As soon as that specific source is eliminate, we are implicitly dependent upon sources beyond our immediate input. Electricity, coal, oil, propane, and heat pumps remove self-reliant individuals from that key feature of self-reliance…now we can’t avoid freezing to death in the winter. We would have no choice other than being dependent upon institutions. This is precisely opposite the founding principles of this state and this country. Those who proposed this should be ashamed of themselves for thinking they know what’s best for others. How dare you presume to know what’s best for me? I can promise you that, after 10 years of college, a doctoral degree, a full array a primitive skills, and 54 years on this planet, you have NO business informing me, and MANY others, that it’s wrong to heat our homes with firewood. My wood heating is VERY efficient! | ||
| Selena Collins | New Yorkers should DEFINITELY be allowed to heat with wood. The idea that this would be outlawed is RIDICULOUS. | ||
| Kathi Hunt | Please decide thoughtfully when discussing reducing emissions from wood burning as it pertains to home heating, and recreation. Many low income rural homes would be impacted negatively if it is banned. | ||
| Denise Katzman | Empower Equity | TY for this Draft. The Chapters that I checked marked. I was able to read. I have 1 salient comment: Bitcoin POW (BP) violates those Chapters. NYS must ban BP, commencing with the Moratorium that Heastie squashed. He is more concerned about retaining his donations from the Electricians' Union (EU), then he is about protecting human, environmental and economic health. The EU doesn't work full weeks in this sector. The only safe-ish crypto currency is POS CBDC (Proof of Stake, Central Bank Dig Currency). The Gov must utilize her Executive authority and enact the Moratorium. Cuomo turned upstate NY into the highest hash rate aka influx of BP which equals anthropogenic pollution, energy theft, DeFi and this invisible so-called currency is highly volatile and speculative. BP decentralizes our finance sector. Those that support BP don't want any regulations. They want MetaVerse to rule. Holistically, BP is worse than FRACing. Climate Justice will only prevail, when NYS bans BP. Otherwise NYS Climate Laws will be void aka no legal effect. That's a plain and simple violation. The State has been silent since the DEC & Assembly hearings. I'm aware that there are approx 4K comments under consideration. That's a low number due to the State not sharing the 2021 DEC & Assembly hearings wide enough. There is a current Art 78 lawsuit in upstate NY. I work with a NYSERDA FinTech company that truly cares about lessening Climate Crisis. Have a Happy, Healthy & Safe New Year. Best, Denise Katzman | |
| Nicholas Rotolo | China and Russia are the biggest polluters ,we are the cleanest. Without them in the Paris accord its useless for USA to suffer of many years that won’t change anything. it’s for china to sell their battery’s and Germany the panels and Rusha to take more land. The climate won’t change if we go 100 percent green. Technology is not there yet can’t maintain without focal fuels. Stop pushing only green it’s a combination of everything. President Trump knows what we need to do at this time we should listen to him | ||
| Lynn Paige | NYS Resident | Trusting you will make the correct ethical and moral decision...not the socialist agenda!! Thank you soooo much! | |
| Cathy McLachlan | It is unreasonable to think that banning the option of burning wood for heat is a way to fix climate change. For rural areas, especially those economically depressed, burning wood allows us to make ends meet. It is a renewable resource. Oil, gas and electricity all are not renewable and solar or hydro power are too expensive for us. We are already using a gasification system that reduces pollution from our boiler. | ||
| Joanne Hanrahan | Banning the use of wood for heat.. TALK TO NYSEG! New York State Electric and Gas. December 17, 2021...44" of snow! Trees and power lines down all over upstate New York. If you ban the use of fireplaces and wood stoves you will have the deaths of thousands of upstate New Yorkers on your hands along with survivors with no water due to frozen or busted water pipes. Fire Places, wood stoves and gas generators are essential to NYS. | ||
| Joshua Failla | Hello, I would like to share my input in regards to those who rely on wood stoves as their heating source. Despite the health related concerns, it is important to understand that for some, this is the only affordable option. Removing this option, while creating a financial burden is not viable. There must be a more "targeted" approach, since not every region/county in the state of NY are alike. What works for Westchester or Albany may not be suitable for Delaware or Oswego county. Please take this into consideration. Thank you | ||
| jeffrey Cole | In reference to not being able to burn wood for heating purposes. I’m just wondering who is going to pay my heating bill since now you(the government) wants to once again limit us citizens on what we can and can not do. I think the is a big mistake and there are alternatives to help reduce Emissions or come up with a way to filter the air to make it cleaner but to limit how people heat their homes is just ridiculous. Thank you for your time and. | ||
| Joshua Wolfer | The purpose of government is not to make decisions for the individuals it governs. But to ensure that thier rights are preserved. This whole b.s. is an infringement on the individuals right to care for themselves. How many New Yorkers heat thier houses with wood or wood products?? Are you seriously going to freeze your constitutes out of their homes?! I heat with wood.. I have ZERO intentions of changing that. Matter of fact, you want to make lives better? Start by getting the hell out of mine! | ||
| Joan Bobier | Under current emissions, no mention was made of our military industrial complex. How much coal is used to produce the steel we consume? How many guns do we produce? How many helicopters? How much jet fuel does a fighter jet consume?etc. | ||
| Melissa Hoffmann | All new fossil fueled power plants in New York state must be banned and New York must develop a plan to decomission all current fossil fuel powered plants. This must include subsidizing renewable forms of energy to promote its growth while decreasing fossil fuel usage. New York must also reduce energy use in general by placing limits on the large corporations that create the most emissions, and should ensure that all residents have reliable consistent energy. | ||
| Scott Mesick | self employed | I understand that NY state is going to try to ban the burning of wood as a source of heat. All I have to say about this is that it has to be one of the most absurd, idiotic, and insane ideas to come down the pike Don't do it! | |
| Roger Karlinski | I object to the proposal to restrict or prohibit wood burning in Upstate NY. You are trying to come up with a solution to something that is not a problem. Second, you are removing a freedom that is perfectly allowed in any other state. Third, people heat their homes, cottages, cabins and camps with wood from wood harvested from already dead trees. Campfires also are a recreational activity and object to anything that restricts a perfectly legal activity. | ||
| James Cotsonas | Electric heat pumps do not have the ability to effectively heat in the climate of upstate New York. Manufacturers of heat pumps claim they can go down to -5 F, however the units need to run a thaw cycle every so often meaning your house is not heating when it needs to be. Propane and heating oil are the best. Electric heat pumps must be sized for heating which means they are oversized for cooling. Heat pumps would run more electricity than needed in the summer time. We need to look at the practicality of technology as well as emissions. How is the electricity going to be harnessed? How will the electrical infrastructure be upgraded? If we add more electric cars to the grid there will be short changes. Solar electricity is not the best option seeing how production cannot be ramped up or down based on demand. California attempted to run at a high amount of non-fossil fuel over the summer and had many brown outs. Do you want this to happen to the the citizens of NY? NY has lost so many people due to taxes lets not add more reasons for them to leave. I am for green measures when they are thought out and make sense. Lets not rush this. | ||
| Larry Carpenter | Wood being burnt has been going on for millions of years. Forest fires from Lightning strikes, volcanoes eruptions. Possibly even meteor hits. And man has been burning wood for thousands of years with no major impact. The push for 100% renewable is not only detrimental to our economy. But as Physics as we know it. It Is not possible. To further ruin NY’s economy for unicorn goals is unacceptable. California is already limiting when you can use electricity. And here in the North east we get even less sun for solar. We don’t get the Santa Anna winds to drive wind power. And how green is it to mine millions of tons of earth to get enough cobalt and lithium for batteries along with the manufacturing of said batteries. And what do you do with them afterwards or the wind turbines. You bury the blades because their non recyclable. How green is that. Wood is economical and with the newer stoves especially very clean. It’s also renewable. What kind of tyranny is it to propose telling someone they can’t cut wood on their land and burn it for warmth. Also electric heat is the least efficient, most expensive energy their is. How large of storage facility will need to be built in each town and city to conserve stored electricity. At what climate cost to the environment. I don’t believe this is about going green, this is about filling the pockets of those that invested in green energy. If it wasn’t you would be pushing for nuclear. Clean reliable cheap. I and my family 100% disagree with doing away with wood burning. And disagree with the way the state is going about forcing the citizens of this State which last I looked was still in America to buy a so called green vehicle which it absolutely is not. When you consider mining of minerals production charging daily afterward from a power grid that can’t support it. And the mining manufacturing of a new power grid. | ||
| Gary Huebner | Do you have any idea of the hardship you will put on families stopping the burning of wood stoves in homes for a heat source?? Do you think you’ll just print more money and create more people on the take? Talking about proud people who work and and if you put this burden on them SHAME ON YOU!!!! But I truly believe you as rich liberal politicians don’t care about the working class. Very sad times and you should all be ashamed. Get the Country together and go after China and the real whores of environmental no concern and stop putting the burden on those of us trying to survive in a Liberal beliefs that only benefit the rich. Gary Huebner | ||
| Kevin Robare | I completely disagree with the proposal to phase out all wood burning stoves. For many new yorkers, burning wood is a reliable, cheap and easy way to heat their homes. You people are completely out of touch with the working world. Nobody can only afford just one form of heat during the winter in this state. Who are you to say how people can and can't survive in this world. Your bail reform laws are the biggest flop since Joe Biden. You need to come to terms with the fact that you work for us. Not the other way around | ||
| Kailyn Evans | WE will not COMPLY! You are putting laws into action without OUR VOTE!! You will not win by taking our rightS away to burn wood AND TO HEAT OUR HOMES AS WE PLEASE. What if the power goes out? What about the poor who can heat their homes for free by cutting the wood down on the land they pay taxes on?? And then to tax our mileage?! Tax the working people?! ABSURD!! You just want a perfect communist state and WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT COMPLY!! We all will stop paying taxes and we will not comply to this insane "GREEN" act- the exact one that lines your pockets!!! | ||
| Luke Failla | Do not ban wood stoves. Are you insanely cruel? Can we ban fire placed on Madison and Park Ave while we are at it? Or are we only targeting rural poor and working class folks. My father will freeze to death without a wood stove. Propane heat is way too expensive. | ||
| Donald Gardon | Many people in rural areas enjoy and depend on Woodstove’s and fireplaces to heat their homes. Wood is a renewable resource. Please do not even consider outlawing the use of wood to heat homes. The people of New York will strongly oppose any attempt to do so! | ||
| Benjamin Lapham | I am concerned that this report seems to be targeting residential firewood heating as a target on a variety of questionable reasons (e.g. "greater than that from the power generation sector and the entire and transportation sectors combined") while simultaneously avoiding the likelihood that the cohort using wood for heating is economically disadvantaged. Wood heating is much more utilized in less densely populated areas so the social and health impact of PM emissions is considerably overstated in this section. The economic impact to an already disadvantaged segment though is substantial and may have the effect of devastating upstate and Adirondack communities. | ||
| Sam Battaglini | Certified Appraiser | As a real estate professional for over 25 years the objective of zero carbon emissions is very dangerous to the people of New York State. Most of the state is rural with limited energy sources for home heating. Natural gas, coal and wood are primary heating sources for most of the inhabitants of all areas north of NYC. Many of the thousands of home I have inspected have heating sources that burn natural gas, LP gas, wood pellets and coal pellets and rely on these heating sources to keep this homes warm enough to survive the extremely cold temperatures that we have for 4-5 months out of the year. If these sources of fuel are banned in any way, it would jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Even in homes that have electric or geothermal as the primary source of heat, it is not usually adequate to maintain a comfortable temperature and are supplemented by wood, coal and LP gas. And due to severe winter storms where electric power can be out for days, fossil fuels and wood are the only source of heat to keep people alive. The belief that we can and or should go to a net zero carbon output is ignorant and dangerous to millions of people in the State of New York who rely on fossil fuels to survive. Especially those who are poor living in rural areas. This would a death sentence for those people. | |
| Kevin Brady | My comments are specific to the topic of the use of firewood for heating and camping etc. I live on 130 acres, pay insane property taxes, have to maintain my own access to my home and generally have no services from government such as sewer, town water, garbage pickup etc. Every action thus far related to climate justice that NY has implemented has done nothing for our environment, it simply moves the impact from one area to another. This makes NY even less competitive in a global market. All of our utility costs have skyrocketed while service has declined. Unfortunately these policies by NY are nothing more than a bunch of academic thesis papers in competition with a select few other states such as California to see who can appear to be more environmentally conscience, with little to no real impact. I will be more than happy to send you my property tax bills which you can pay if you want me to not use the resources on my property for our existence and livelihood. | ||
| George H VanHoose | Residential wood/biomass burning should be excluded from any and all policy implementations and/or changes pertaining to the Climate Act or subsequent legislation. Wood/biomass burning for residential heat is a cost-effective way for people to heat their homes; furthermore, conversion to electric heat will require costly reconfiguration, especially in older homes. In addition to the cost-effectiveness of wood/biomass burning, availability of appliances for generating heat through these means will need to be serviced and/or replaced from time-to-time. In order to service or replace these appliances, parts for wood/biomass stoves and new wood/biomass stoves will need to be available for purchase in NYS. That cannot happen if NYS implements policy which outlaws (or otherwise renders impossible) wood/biomass burning for home heat. If there are drawbacks to residential wood/biomass burning, then information pertaining to these drawbacks should be made available, and people should be left to make their own choices -- and their particular choices should be respected by government no matter what they decide. | ||
| laura riposo-hackney | Hi, I feel strongly pulled to plant more trees on our land in Nelson for future generations. I am not sure how this fits into this Climate Action Council. But, I am alsoways looking for help or inexpensive ways to buy and plant tree's. even learning how to graft them might help. Please feel free to contact me if I can help you or you can help me. Thank You, Laura hackney | ||
| Heather Geoghegan | Wyoming County NY is a rural county with more Cows than people. There is NO natural gas pipelines in my area and we rely on Propane due to the cost of electric. It would cost us $500 a month to heat a 2,000 square foot home at present national grid costs. With an average household income of roughly $45,000 that's $6,000 a month on budget for the year! That does not include the cost to convert our appliances and heating system to electric. This Bill is incomprehensible to an area that loses power at least 2 -3 times a month! Many homes have natural gas and/or propane operated back up generators to avoid food loss, heat and those with oxygen machines. Using wood allows us to practice smart forestry and maintain a healthy forest and eliminate the spread of invasive species introduced to our area by means of freight brought in at the NYS ports and NJ ports. This bill will cripple an area that has already lost more than 2% of its population due to taxation increases, and job loss. This area CANNOT afford this plan. We are not NYC we rely on vehicles to drive us to work and to take us to necessary appointments. I am against this bill. | ||
| Kelly Gordon | Eliminating the use of wood burning stoves is ridiculous. Many residents in the north country heat with wood. This would be a major hardship to homeowners as well as business owners. This proposal needs to be DROPPED. | ||
| Joseph Failla | Dear CAC You are planning to reduce emissions but you are very much over doing it. First I do not believe in it is very important to stop the green house effect. Are you considering all the scientific reports or just what you’re left woke agenda is pushing. I’m sorry but you are doing mush damage in enforcing such regulations! My main concern is wood burning my main way I repeat my main way to keep warm in a cold winter season is by wood burning You self righteous individual thinking that this is so important! To change everything to electric which has a large emissions print! I repeat this plan to stop wood stove is wrong as well as other ridiculous moves damages the state of New York! Please resend this plan! Sincerely Joseph Failla | ||
| Michael Kielthy | i don’t want more restrictions on burning and landscape equipment and assure you it will affect my vote way too much over reach and government interference | ||
| Scott Buchholz | Do not limit my ability to heat my house with firewood. Don’t even consider it! Make the companies that spew their smog in the air have cleaner emIssions! | ||
| Jennifer Glasheen | First off you all need a Geology 101 fulfillment to be on this committee. You have no control over climate or Mother Earth. Earth / climate change has been documented for the last billion plus years. We as humans only represent a very fine pinpoint in geological history. Second, renewable resources should not be removed as a heating source for any one in the United States. Coal, natural gas, wood burning, and to an extent Oil preserve. Third, you have zero infrastructure to maintain electricity to vehicles / homes and businesses. The end. | ||
| Jennifer Gatto | STOP THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ME AND MY FAMILY !!! NYS GOVT CAN KISS MY A**!!!!! | ||
| Holly Granat | I support the move toward Agrivoltaics, especially the co-existence of solar and agriculture on the same parcel, however, I wish more focus would be placed on utilizing parking lots and buildings exclusively for solar arrays. These areas are already causing ground disturbance, and can be found in both rural and urban communities (i.e. gas stations, municipal buildings, schools, etc). The small section on Commercial Rooftop & Parking Lot Solar mentions that the State will conduct "further analysis" but it does not lay out a plan to work toward commercial and private adoption of parking lot and rooftop solar. There are potentials for grant opportunities or partnerships with private businesses/municipalities with the potential to place solar on their rooftops/parking lots. Switching focus from agricultural lands will allow the land to return to its natural state to sequester carbon and increase biodiversity, which are also climate goals. I have personally seen many solar projects slated exclusively on huge agricultural parcels while municipal and commercial buildings in the downtown sector where I live still do not have solar. I just ask that you please consider a shift away from agricultural solar projects altogether, unless the lands are still functioning as agricultural and famers are able to rent the land for a profit, as is the case with Agrivoltaics, rather than one major land sale and the arrays prevent reestablishment of natural habitat. I am a layperson when it comes to solar technology, but if larger solar projects can be divided between multiple buildings/parking lots I believe they could achieve the same results as taking up 12-25 acres of potential greenspace. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Laurie Mann | Green energy is unreliable and too expensive for most people. Until the technology and ability to recycle advance, wind and solar energy are just feel-good moves. If you want to change, go nuclear. | ||
| Jeremy Sowle | Hello the option to restrict wood heat from homes in the coldest of days in NYS is absurd. Especially with the rising cost of fuel oil and gas being attacked by the same fools who don’t understand what cost offset wood does for the working middle class. Since I was born I’ve been kept warm by wood heat and to think that the land tax I pay on time and every year is my heating bill is enough cost to be able to use wood off my land. People need to get a clue on mornings just like this that are 8 degrees that wood heat is a huge defense against the superior cold. Families can’t afford to keep there homes at a comfortable set point without it. Mine especially. | ||
| Mike Oxmall | I’m really curious how you plan on preventing millions of your citizens from heating their homes with a free resource readily available on their own private property. Also relevant: most of the firearms in the state of New York are owned by people who heat their homes with wood. | ||
| jacob krahn | NA | Hello, I dont know which topic this applys to persay.. might not even be an actual part of the plan. but i am seeing a rumor around facebook with a link to this page that says that theres going to be a ban or legislation based upon burning wood fuel. I had planned to get a wood burning stove soon. as its costing me ~500+ per month in fuel oil to heat my house per month becuase its an old drafty house with no insulation and single pane windows.. adding a wood stove was hopefully going to mitigate that as i tried to save up to insulate.. but i dont know if I ever will with 5000 a year in taxes on my house that cost 65,000. 500 a month on fuel oil when its -12 degrees outside. etc.. and my one money saving option seems to be banned cause people down south where it doesnt get cold arent considering the people that live in the cold.. | |
| Kasey Whitman | I truly hope that the ambitious goals of this plan can be analyzed. I understand that the intentions are good but the methods will have serious consequences for an extremely large number of upstate residents. My family and I own 54 acres of forest and we harvest our fire wood from this property. Our wood is dry and seasoned before we use it to heat our home keeping emissions low, that is the way that the majority of people utilize firewood. The financial ramifications of not using firewood would cripple my family and many others. And I don’t think that forcing people to switch to fossil fuels is the clean alternative, windmills kill birds, and solar depends on imported materials that will be extremely difficult to dispose of in the future. Charging people for electricity that is generated from coal burning power power plant does not seem like a viable alternative either. | ||
| Michael Richards | I can't believe anyone would ever consider stopping the use of wood! What is more natural than that? There is no natural gas in the north country,except in a very few areas. A very high percentage of people burn wood or wood pellets. This is by far cheaper and cleaner than oil.Please stop this madness. | ||
| Kris Sisbower | Any thought of banning firewood as a home (and potentially business and public facility) energy source should be rejected. Wood is a renewable resource and growing hardwood trees benefits our environment in numerous ways. (Oxygen production, lumber resource, paper and cardboard manufacture and trees as an environmental filter, to name a few.) The related industries inevitably leave usable firewood behind which can be used as an energy source. Burning wood, especially in an airtight stove with a catalytic converter produces a similar amount of atmospheric carbon to the natural rotting process of the leftover wood products that would take place over time. And the decomposition process produces more methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon. Such a proposal clearly would discriminate against the rural population of NY State. Sounds like a plan thought up by ignorant city dwellers with $$$ to burn. (Carbon pollution!) Further, it would be grossly unfair to rural property owners-limiting a legal, proper, traditional use of their land. Let’s require EVERY person in NY State to maintain at least 10 trees, Including city dwellers. Oxygen production would be enhanced! Or, provide a tax break for all rural property owners for growing and maintaining trees on their property. This might make up for some of the pollution caused by and in the cities. Tax cities that depend on upstate electricity for power. There should be a transportation cost for electricity and other supplies BORNE BY USERS per mile. Cities in NY should be self supporting energy-wise—or pay extra. Many City decisions have NO place in upstate rural communities. This is one. And as solar power expands, the cities will owe even more to rural areas. Rather than misguided laws such as banning wood burning, why not consider ways to provide low cost efficient wood stoves and low cost “plug & play†solar that can be directly installed by the end consumer? | ||
| Crystal Keck | As you may know there is a rumor circulating that NYers will no longer be able to heat with wood next year. I think this would be an unfortunate decision. Although it may lead to emissions a lot of my county is low income and the cheapest heat source by far is wood. You may have assistance for the lower economy people but I can tell you that even I and my husband can struggle with heating costs and between the two of us we make about $100,000 a year. It cost us over $500 a month last year to heat our home. This year we got a wood pellet outdoor boiler. He wanted to heat with coal and I talked him into wood pellets, knowing coal is losing resource. We don’t have natural gas as a resource and I’m not sure I am comfortable with it anyways. Please don’t take away our heating source. | ||
| Craig Hanchett | We heat with EPA rated wood stove. We believe that a rated WShould be a requirement. We also live in a rural setting. We will continue to use our stove until we can no longer maintain it or fuel it. About 10 /15 yrs. We think that oil heat puts more emissions into the upper atmosphere than wood. Wood particles are heavier an drop out on the ground. Yes carbon does go up Far more people heat with oil & gas than burn wood. At times we heat with gas We have a 90% furnace. To turn everyone to elec you will have to build more nuke sites or gas fired. So you see we do think of the environment. | ||
| Joshua Fowler | Don't get me wrong by these comments, I am for making the future greener and working on lowering the carbon footprint as much as possible. This most of the ideas proposed are going to be half hazardly implemented with no consideration for actual New York citizens. The issue of heating homes with firewood is not only a backup safety net for our Northern New York winters, but also a way to help offset the rising cost of living caused by liberal tax plans. The use of gasoline powered small engines are the only realistic and logical thing to be able to use in most of the rural North, where a trip to the closet store can be over 50 miles away. The infrastructure of the North Country can not currently support the move to electric/battery operated lifestyle for everything. The biggest way that this act is going to make carbon neutral is by pushing every level headed New Yorker out of the state as they already are. I love my beautiful part of New York and pains me to see these idiotic rules and acts like the NYSERDA ruining the ability to live. Unless the direction of this state changes, there is a growing likelihood I will be joining the hundreds of thousands of people that are leaving what is becoming the USSNY(United Socialist State of New York. | ||
| Samuel,Diamond | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. As a New Yorker, I support the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, but I have serious concerns about several of the Draft Scoping Plan’s recommendations. Statewide heating electrification could inadvertently lead to higher home energy costs, more frequent wintertime power outages, and greater dependence on fossil gas to support increasing demand for electricity. Unlike electric heat pumps, Bioheat fuel offers an immediate solution for decarbonizing the heating sector. Research shows higher blends of Bioheat fuel significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, heating costs and fossil fuel consumption. Local heating fuel providers are already delivering blends up to 50% biodiesel (B50), which can reduce carbon emissions by 40%, and have committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 using higher blends that require only minor adjustments to existing heating systems – not costly replacements. Bioheat fuel also supports New York farms and restaurants as biodiesel comes from renewable sources like soybeans and used cooking oil. I am glad to see the Draft Scoping Plan supports the use of Bioheat fuel in New York as per state law. As of this July, all heating oil sold in New York State contains at least 5% biodiesel, increasing to 20% (B20) in 2030. Local heating fuel providers want the law to go further and support raising it to a 50% blend, and to a net-zero fuel by 2050. They are helping consumers reduce their carbon footprint at no added cost by using Bioheat fuel. Bioheat fuel offers an immediate decarbonization solution for 1.4 million oil-heated homes statewide; so why should we pay tens of thousands of dollars on electric heat pumps that will increase our state’s dependence on fossil gas? The answer is that we shouldn’t, and we won’t. We already have a better solution in renewable Bioheat fuel. I ask that you please take these comments into | ||
| Cathie,Benson | I am concerned about the little businesses and average person that will not be able to have the finances to comply with the changes. People can hardly make ends meet now. Also, I’m concerned about the power grid being able to handle everything. If the grid goes down, people won’t be able to go anywhere for help. Rural areas won’t have the opportunities to travel very far without charging up. We need to keep things in a balance.Everything should not go all electric. | ||
| thomas,wright | Atlas Industries | the CLCPA needs to directly address the concerns of communities of color and low incomes, people that have disproportionately borne the brunt of climate impacts and its man-made causes. this is true for New York state, and it is true globally. With a CLCPA that emphasizes environmental justice, New York can set an example for how a renewable revolution can help all people. The phaseout of fossil fuels must place renewables such as wind and solar as core energy sources, and this phaseout must begin now. biofuels, quote-unquote renewable natural gas, biomass, waste incineration and fossil fuel-generated green hydrogen are false solutions, and should not be included in the final scoping plan. Legislation outlining targets and goals without a solid funding mechanism only amounts to empty promises. Rebates and incentives were critical components of my decision to purchase an EV, solar array for my home and its conversion to 100% electric. I am doing the same for my business. Funding our transition to a renewable power source and complete electrification was costly, and involved difficult choices and sacrifices. There are many individuals and business owners across NY state who want to avoid further committed emissions, but need incentives to do so. A successful CLCPA will provide funding for electrification and decarbonization efforts across all sectors. It is clear that scenario 3 of the draft scoping plan is the best option for the citizens of New York State. Zero emissions by 2040 is ambitious, but necessary. The best way to reach that goal is with a plan that includes a phaseout of fossil fuels that begins now, along with a rapid deployment of renewables. The CLCPA must be enforceable as law. The targets and timelines are meaningless if we lack the mechanisms to legally enforce compliance. Finally, the CAC should look for ways to accelerate the timelines by creating a framework to facilitate accelerated fossil fuel phaseout and electrification. | |
| Celia,Green | The Plan appropriately recommends actions to prevent the leakage of greenhouse gasses from landfills and anaerobic digesters, describing them as “obvious and well-documented.” While municipal landfills throughout New York State have methane collections systems in place, the Plan recognizes that methane from decomposing organic material still seeps through caps or escapes during the active dumping of mixed waste. While recommendations elsewhere to ban organic waste from landfills will eventually solve this problem, decades of organic waste dumping mean that landfills will continue to generate methane for a long time. Moreover, anaerobic digesters, if not properly managed, can also leak methane. The Plan offers sensible recommendations for implementing more effective systems, for maintenance and monitoring, and for research, and we support these recommendations. | ||
| Shirley,Chan | The Haudenosaunee Confederacy represents sovereign Nations with political and cultural agency. NYS must be in dialogue with them as our friends, partners, mutual stakeholders and teachers. The history of our relationship must be respectfully recognized and our future plans must honor the gifts, needs and rights of indigenous peoples. | ||
| Jacqueline,Swiernik | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope plan. I am in favor of reducing greenhouse emissions, and many aspects of the plan will be easier to implement in a city area. However, most of NY is a rural or semi-rural area, as is my home location. Currently we use three energy types: electricity, propane (cooking and hot water) and wood stove (supplemental heating.) Electricity is currently the least stable and most expensive option in our monthly bills. I am not in favor of completely changing to only electricity for health, comfort, or financial reasons. I am in favor of taking steps towards the goal of improving NY's energy systems and believe it is better to ease the way to increase the use of heating pumps or focusing on the larger emission issues first. At this time our taxes and fees are the highest in the nation already and adding more to it will simply accelerate the exodus out of our beautiful state. Jacki Swiernik | ||
| Chris,Deemer | The experience of California and Germany, two entities rushing headlong into the zero emissions future have been plagued with high energy prices AND more fossil fuel use! Don't make the same mistake! NUCLEAR energy is clean, safe and carbon zero! Don't turn our backs on it. We need a stable base, two thirds of our energy use must always be immediately available. We can only do that through fossil fuels or nuclear. Let's go nuclear, and then renewables with their variable nature and battery back up can supply the rest. Please, don't bankrupt small businesses and low income people with high energy costs. They will move elsewhere and then New York for all its high minded thinking will look more like Detroit than what it should look like. | ||
| Lori,Morris | #NAME? | The time is now to implement the goals of the draft scoping plan! We must do this now or our children, the animals, insects , trees and all living beings will be decimated by Climate change! Please do the right thing for our world! Do not let the Greed of the Oil and Gas industry kill our Earth! | |
| Kemp,Baratier | I am a Herkimer County landowner/farmer who has recently contracted with a solar company to hopefully lease a portion of our property for solar development. We feel the potential income stream from the solar project will help us retain and maintain the property, pay the high taxes and provide for our and our children's future. We plan to continue farming on much of our property but the solar will also help us diversify our operation. The potential income per acre from solar is much more than from any crop or animals that I can raise on this marginal farmland especially with the current extremely high prices of inputs such as machinery, fuel and fertilizer. This climate action plan seems very ambitious since we are very far from having enough renewable energy sources in place. NYS needs to do more to facilitate rather than hinder renewable development. We are seeing more and more "No Big Solar" signs in our neighborhood already. | ||
| John,Miller | I utterly disagree with the entire premise of this plan. This plan is harmful to the well being of the people of this state, especially the rural communities. There is not the electric generation capacity or distribution capacity to implement this plan. This plan will drive costs and spur more inflation as the price of electricity becomes untenable. Heating homes in upstate is not practical with electric due to the low temperatures. As you shutter electric plants across the state, why is it that the Cornell power plant is still operating? Running a farm is entirely impractical with this plan. Food prices will soar and availability will plummet if this plan is implemented. | ||
| Patricia,Reis | The current infrastructure will not support the overreaching requirements in your proposal. The requirements you propose for homeowners, auto owners, taxpayers is a prime example of bad government. NY residents are being driven out of this state by public officials who are completely disconnected from the realities of the public's financial survival struggle. When the infrastructure is developed the public will naturally gravitate to a viable product. For big government to haphazardly impose this burden silly nilly on the public is irresponsible. Just stop. Develop a realistic plan relating to new construction and provide incentives for those who WANT to adopt the all electric/heat pump option under your proposal.And btw, let's reverse the law that permits the selling of our natural gas outside our own country. I liken it to the airplane rule, we need to care for ourselves first so that we are able to care for others. | ||
| James,Foster | PSEG | ||
| Richard,Mikus | Concerned citized. | So if you want to eliminate the use of natural gas furnaces, hot water heaters, dryer and kitchen stoves, are you going to provide homeowner with assistance in updating infrastructure to use such things as solar or other power sources? The current cost of installing solar is quite expensive. Believe me, I'd love to have solar power, but, the cost to install is too high right now. The cost of changing over to electric will result in high electricity bills for residents. I don't want to pay more than I am right now. Electric stoves are unreliable and take longer to heat than natural gas. Does this also mean that we you're going to outlaw charcoal grills and propane grills? Electric vehicles are even more expensive and the batteries used to make these vehicles has been proven to be toxic to the environment. What's next, cars with miniature nuclear reactors? What we need is manufacturers to improve efficiency of any products that use fossil fuels or natural gas. We don't need state government and environments advocates telling us what we can have in our homes and what we drive. Ever read the book "1984" by George Orwell. That's what we're turning into. | |
| Marco,Gonzalez | I think the scoping plan is something good for us as emphasize so many factors to the community and to the grow that people want to have in our society moving forward.recently to in my class of energy I learned so many things that connects with this topics and public transportation is something that our community is something that we need to keep going and learn from our mistakes and how are we using the local government to help our community and to help people to understand how important. public health is something that our government lack to other people. but overall people needs more help but in some ways. but overall I think the government want to help as much as you can. | ||
| Adam,Brockway | Stop. Think about what you are doing. You talk about "disadvantaged' communities, yet come up with plans that will bankrupt them. How will they afford the conversions you want to force on them when we can barely afford food right now?. How dare you. Why is it always the stick with you people and never the carrot? If your plans are good, they will be done voluntarily. How do you expect people to not freeze when the power goes out for days? This nonsense you propose will further harm the people of New York and drive more people away. You're leadership is terrible, your ideas are bad and the disaster they will lead to is even worse. | ||
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should include robust proposals for public education. The plan recommends helping the public understand Smart Growth specifically, but these recommendations should be expanded to include the full range of transportation-related transformations. Community groups and local officials are obvious target audiences, but so are teachers and the media. Information about both the health and the economic benefits of transforming the transportation sector to a zero-emissions sector should be shared as widely as possible. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan's proposals for market-based solutions to encourage Zero-Emission Vehicles are promising, but they must do more to protect low-income New Yorkers. The Plan recommends a number of ways New York State could encourage the purchase of ZEVs. these include variable parking and registration fees, undertaking feasibility studies for businesses with vehicle fleets that they need to transition to ZEVs, expanding NY's Green Bank, and offering state backing for bank loans for ZEVs. The plan mentions assisting low- and middle-income New Yorkers with rebates to help them afford ZEVs. These are all useful recommendations, but NYS should do more to work with people in disadvantaged communities so that ZEVs can be a viable option for them. This should include attention to charging infrastructure and electricity costs as well as the cost of the vehicles themselves. Also, references to self-driving vehicles and the "Internet of Things" point to developments that pose both safety and privacy risks, don't offer improved pathways to zero emissions, and are priced out of reach of low- and middle-income NewYorkers. They have no place here. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations about the use of hydrogen and biofuels raise red flags. The Plan suggests that hard-to-decarbonize transportation modes, such as aviation and heavy truckis. be encouraged to shift to lower-carbon versions of fossil fuels. The Plan refers to "renewable diesel" and "renewable jet fuel," terms that are mystifying as no such renewable fuels exist. This seems to mean biofuels that are blended into petroleum-based fuels. Biofuels bring their own problems, i.e. the extensive use of agricultural land for monocultures that feed no one, and the release of carbon dioxide--obviously a key greenhouse gas--when burned. Blending these fuels with petroleum-based fuels simply lowers the emission of local air pollution and greenhouse gases without eliminating them. "Green" hydrogen is not currently an option. It is currently too expensive to be marketable and its volatility would require building out extensive infrastructure to ensure safety. Moreover, producing so-called "green" hydrogen yields carbon dioxide, so it needs to be paired with Carbon Capture an Storage, a technology that is not currently available at scale and at a marketable price. New York's Clean Energy Standard must steer clear of both biofuels and hydrogen. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | The Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations concerning Alternate (non-vehicular) Mobility) appropriately recognize that each community should develop its own approach appropriate to that community. Even so, the state should take responsibility for measuring the outcome of these local approaches and for communicating those results. The plan recognizes the value of walking, biking and other non-vehicular transport modes, both to public health and greenhouse gas reduction, and suggests an array of regulatory actions and government assistance to promote these alternative modes. The Plan also points to examples from various NYS communities that show the need to tailor programs to local needs and circumstances. But promoting non-vehicular mobility is so crucial to our future that state agencies must go beyond suggesting or facilitating. State agencies must also take responsibility for setting timelines and for measuring the success of local programs such as car-free streets and bike lanes. State agencies must also communicate this information regularly to local communities. | ||
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | It's encouraging to see that the Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the big contribution of heavy-traffic areas, such as ports and depots, to the climate crisis. But the Plan should also include recommendations that address the emissions contributed by last-mile warehouses and just-in-time delivery. The Plan recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopt regulations similar to California's Advanced Clean Fleets proposal that require that medium- and heavy-duty trucks used in heavy-traffic areas become Zero-Emissions Vehicles by 2035. This proposal should integrate concerns with last-mile fulfillment centers, just-in-time stocking practices, and next-day delivery offerings. Such fulfillment centers are often placed in environmental justice communities that consequently see a steep rise in truck traffic -- this in areas that are already overburdened with commercial and industrial activities that harm the health and safety of people there. The transition to ZEVs would lower air pollution, but would not affect safety or quality of life for these communities. Shifting from distribution designs that prioritize speed to designs that prioritize the fewest miles traveled would both reduce energy consumption and improve safety. Thank you. | |
| Richard,Rossi | In light of our economic state of our country, the plan needs to be modified. Unfortunately, this is just a version of the GREEN DEAL proposed by the Biden-Harris Administration and the radical members of Congress. It will fail and result in a disaster for our country's economy and an sky-rocketing inflation.. We are no where near the technology to have viable Solar, Wind or other suitable means of generating the needed power for our electric usage. Furthermore, the cost of these alternative methods will destroy our economy even further. The middle class working citizens will not be able to afford this. Restricting/eliminating the use of gas for home heating and other appliances is not doable in the near future, we not have the means with our current electric grid to handle our population in NY or the country for that matter. Are we going to be subject to rolling blackout's - like Calif.? The elimination of gasoline for autos and other appliances would result in country-wide devastation. Battery technology is no-way a viable energy source. Are you planning on putting charging stations on every single country road in every single small town across NYS. In Upstate NY nothing is close-by, a large town can be over a 100 miles round trip. Is the plan for NYS to purchase all electric appliances, cars etc. for every single citizen in NYS? If so, what will the cost be and who do you thing will be able to pay for this suicide agenda? Do you expect our citizens to just get rid of there gas using equipment and replace them with electric models? Get real - this will not work. First get the alternative power sources up and running and prove to the American people - this is doable. You don't get rid of the old and then hope the new substitute will work. As usual our government has no clue and lack total common sense when it comes to many issues facing our citizens. Do you believe that China and India are going do this - NO!!! | ||
| Daniel,Buerkle | I read the summary and several chapters in detail. I agree that NYS must act now and significantly to substantiallt reduce our carbon footprint! I agree with all content and planned actions and development in the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan! | ||
| Sara,Eldridge | |||
| Jessica,Howe | SUNY ESF | ||
| Golandam,Hedjri | |||
| Bryan,Baker | The entire plan being proposed by the State of New York to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and convert our transportation, homes, and industry to be 100% reliant on electricity is not feasible, cost-effective, and I’ll-conceived. Electricity is a basic need in today’s life and finding renewable energy sources is admirable in an effort to sustain life and reduce the impact of emissions into the atmosphere. However, the plan proposed to eliminate fossil fuels will not work. The electrical grid and workforce of New York State cannot handle the increased loads and demands that an all-electric lifestyle will require. Non-fossil fuel generated power also does not carry the same amperage and voltage required to sustain the proposed changes. This plan will disadvantage New Yorkers significantly, especially financially. With some of the highest property taxes in the nation, New Yorkers will be required to upgrade necessities of everyday life, from home heating systems to vehicles, and then pay to operate them. Improvements to the power grid will not be able to happen overnight and the workforce needed must be specially trained and experienced in handling electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. If New Yorkers truly knew the cost this bill will have on them personally, and the very small impact these changes will have on the environment, they would not support it. | ||
| Trish,Kane | Right now, I think our main concern should be getting gas/energy prices down and the price of groceries and the day to day items we need to live on back down. Our so called President is ruining this country. We need President Trump back. He truly cared about our country and her people. Biden doesn't give a damn about anything except enriching his pockets and that of his corrupt son. We can worry about green energy later. | ||
| Gregory,Harkenrider | I attended the April 14 public comment meeting on the Scoping Plan in Albany. The most striking impression I got was the polarization between advocates and opponents of the plan. We have become a dangerously divided society. It is not climate change that is our existential threat. Nor is it pandemics, or crime, or economic depression, or Russia, or China. It is the ever deepening division in our society that renders us unable to handle the serious problems that will always arise. The vast majority of New Yorkers could unite behind a reasonable energy policy. Instead, in its all-out emphasis on wind and solar power, the Draft Scoping Plan drives us further apart. Once a society loses its ability to compromise and balance conflicting priorities, any number of problems will suffice to bring it down. The times call for a sober, balanced and realistic approach. In that most critical respect, the Draft Scoping Plan is a failure. | ||
| Marija,CROOK | I appreciate much of the work that went into this wide-sweeping climate plan. I am supportive of "Scenario 3". To be brief, I will share that my key concerns with the proposed plan: 1) We cannot use false "solutions" like "green" hydrogen, "renewable" natural gas, and carbon capture. These are NOT methods that decrease our reliance on emissions producing energy. We must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies accompanied by battery investment and innovation. Specifically, This “renewable natural gas,” like fossil gas, is nearly pure methane; if produced and distributed into the existing gas network, it will add to methane leakage and related serious warming effects, as well as local environmental health harms. 2) I work to implement climate incentive programs in California for work and must reiterate that our wider-economy and culture very well may achieve our emissions goals, but it is VERY much not guaranteed that all those within our state will survive and thrive from climate policies unless they are designed with everyone in mind. This means prioritizing the health and welfare of low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. When it comes to creating the inclusive green economy of New York's future, the plan must include strong public health guidelines and labor standards including prevailing wage, benefits, and local hire; funding for workforce development; and more. 3) The CLCPA must be enforceable and include emission reduction timelines by industry. Large and powerful groups will do everything they possibly can to make meaningful change that impacts there bottom-line for as long as possible. We need enforceable mechanisms to ensure there are rules in place for when our climate justice laws are broken. | ||
| Lynda,Lewandowski | I am very opposed to the climate action council’s scoping plan. Who thinks up these ridiculous ideas that affect negatively on New Yorkers? No new gas service to existing buildings in less than 2 years? No new gas to all newly constructed buildings in less than 2 years? No new gas appliances at all in 7 years? And no new gas car sales in less than 14 years? This is so idiotic and there really is NO real science behind any of these. This will make everyone’s life in NY more of a living hell than it already is, and will bring even more adverse effects in poor counties like SCHOHARIE where I live. This plan should be dropped immediately!! I STRONGLY OPPOSE!! | ||
| Zachary,Aney | The plan that is proposed is something that can't be achieved in this short of time frame. The proposed plan eliminates gas heating and cooking with no new gas appliances. It needs to be realized that in some situations, electrical applications such as cooking and heating are slow and impractical. New York's poor economy does nothing to assist a majority of the public in being able to afford to switch everything over to solely electric. Those of you making and proposing these laws make plenty of money and can buy a $40k+ electric car but those who work paycheck to paycheck and some weeks have to choose between rent or food can't. Fix the real issues first before trying to implement something that you have already ignored for years. | ||
| Robert ,Fiorini | I offer comment today not as an expert in any of the sub categories related to the plan, but as a lifelong resident of New York State, land and forest owner, taxpayer, and parent. I encourage the leadership in New York State to not only adopt theCAC plan, but to be as aggressive as possible in achieving the goals and accelerating our transition to a zero-emissions State. The effects of climate change have already begun to impact our state. As a coastal state and a state with limited fossil fuel resources, we need to recognize the negative impacts that fossil fuels have on our economy, our ecology, and the health and well-being of our citizens. Our status as a progressive state affords us the luxury of consideration of a plan such as this. The time has long passed to recognize the effects of climate change and to move beyond the efforts of climate change deniers to subvert and delay any efforts at rational change. I encourage our state leadership to listen to the science and recognize the looming threat we face as a state, nation, and world. We all recognize the path we need to move forward on. Responsible leader ship is the only way we will begin our journey along that path. Be responsible. Adopt the plan. | ||
| Martha,Viglietta | NY State is taking a leadership role in transitioning to a low-carbon energy economy. This is great, but we have to move faster than we're moving now. The most powerful single measure is to put a rising fee on fossil fuels at the source. This has been shown to drive behavior towards alternative energy, and thus drive down emissions faster than any other action. If the fee is rebated back to households, there is protection from rising energy costs. A statewide carbon fee would be great, and set an example for other states. The best option is a federal fee, with a border adjustment/tariff to incentivize other nations to enact their own carbon fee. Dozens of countries already have, including Canada. Please put carbon pricing - something stronger than cap-and-trade, which makes an insufficient impact on emissions - into the funding and legislation for the climate act. Thank you Martha Viglietta Syracuse | ||
| Charles,Kistner | As a long time weather buff, and weather spotter, the measures proposed will destroy America and our ability to help others around the world. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has led to more clouds and warmer nightime lows in places like the Arctic. Misuse of the word 'extreme' and fear mongering is not provable, repeatable science. Naming storms that previously were ignored is disinformation, and just one example of the deceipt. This so called climate emergency is not provable yet will destroy American lives. However, we will do what the climate alarmists want, and leave this state for a constitutional abiding, common sense one. Thank you for the ability to express my thoughts. | ||
| Karen,Cuccinello | cuccinello | All of what you are proposing is putting the cart before the horse. What is the plan to create all of this proposed electricity? Electricity doesn't come from the sky it is generated with some form of fossil fuel. Electricity is extremely expensive for the average New Yorker. How will you dispose of and or recycle the blades for wind power? The solar panels? The gigantic and expensive electric car batteries? You have no plan! | |
| Robert,Geraci | For what it is worth (as it seems the momentum is unstoppable in this State), I want to register my concern and opposition for New York moving totally away from fossil fuels and forcing people to eventually go all electric. I heat my house and cook with propane and I know that that is a plentiful energy source as well as it being energy smart with today’s newer appliances. I’m also cognizant that electricity has to come from somewhere and the irony of sourcing electrical energy from carbon sources kind of defeats the whole purpose, especially the energy for example that goes into producing solar and wind farms which are grossly inefficient and only work because of government subsidies. One of the advantages of keeping a diverse array of energy sources is what happens during a prolonged power outage which is not an out of the realm possibility in our upstate weather. If we were all electric during the 2003 April 3 ice storm for example, people would have been frozen in their homes. It would pay to look at what happened in Texas two years ago when the power went out and water pipes froze and people died in their homes. It is a nice feeling to have gas - natural or propane - to offset those incidents. Third, I sure wish I lived in a state that would just not always try and tell me how to live my life. If there were substantial advantages of going all electric - I submit that there are not when all of the factors are weighed in and a net advantage is calculated - then a move in such a direction might be considered. But this one smacks of pure politics in trying to look good from an environmental perspective versus doing things that make sense and keeping a balance. | ||
| Ronald,BOURQUE | Private | I strongly support NY state actions on moving to a zero CO2 emission economy. I think it is imperative for our future and our planet. I do ask that the government consider the costs of moving to a green economy on the poorer of our NYS residents. The NYS legislature needs to make social programs available to the lower income in our society to reduce the costs of moving to a non-fossil fuel economy on those less fortunate in our society. They can afford this transition the least. Let's help them. | |
| Lynn,Shon | NYC Department of Education | Ch. 5: Interdisciplinary K-12 climate education should be included among key strategies to meeting New York’s vision. Doing so will help New York become a climate action leader and will unify New Yorkers to reach the state’s climate goals. Ch. 6: The lack of equitable climate education across the state, but particularly in environmental justice and frontline communities, should be considered a vulnerability. Moreover, investment in K-12 public education is a necessary public investment and a priority in Environmental Justice Communities. The term “Disadvantaged Communities” could be viewed as problematic. Perhaps “historically underserved” or “historically disenfranchised” could be considered more respectful terms. Ch. 7: Climate education must be more systematically included in K-12 curricula, and should be incorporated into state learning standards, rather than facilitated through auxiliary school programs. Climate education is essential to ensuring that students are prepared to thrive in a climate-altered world and are equipped with the knowledge and skills they will need post-education. Additionally, funds should be identified and appropriated specifically for K-12 climate education. Ch. 12: The plan requires building decarbonization curricula in State-funded K-12 education (p. 151/141), however this should be expanded to a comprehensive, interdisciplinary climate education curriculum that is incorporated throughout State standards. Ch. 13: Comprehensive, interdisciplinary K-12 climate change curricula are critical for meeting the goal of supporting clean energy siting and community acceptance, therefore more robust language and stronger commitments to K-12 climate education should be used. Ch. 16: K-12 science and civic curriculum should include education on zero waste, circular economies, product stewardship, recycling, and waste/wastewater management. There is a need for more comprehensive K-12 education components and this should be included in the W2. | |
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | My name is Peter Teall and I live in Perinton, NY but my mailing address is in Pittsford, NY, 14534. I am a mental health therapist and a climate advocate. I really support the recommendations in the NYS CAC Scoping plan. It will be a heavy lift to revamp our electric grid and eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, in the short time we have. I support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040. I think that the use of any kind of hydrogen fuel is a false solution because it's so carbon intensive. Even Green Hydrogen needs a lot of natural gas to keep it from eroding the pipes, so what's the point? We need funding of R and D to devise long-term battery storage so we don't have to rely on fossil fuels in the winter. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Peter Teall, LCSW | |
| David,Simonds | This plan will further the deterioration of this State. We are one of the top states for loss of population, loss of big business, loss of small business. This will put thousands out of a job, close thousands of businesses. This will place undue burden on the finances of households. This will further increase taxes and red tape. This will increase government employees. This will be a burden on those of us who love this state and want to live here. I am strongly opposed to this. | ||
| Sandy,DeJohn | Binghamton University | Critical maintenance / renovation projects of buildings over 50 years old require the approval of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). If building envelop improvements are critical for the success of reaching the CLCPA goals, SHPO needs to align its interest with this this law. | |
| Benjamin,K | While looking over the Draft Scoping Plan I was interested to see what plans were put forth regarding boat emissions regulation. I didn't find this mentioned in the plan. I think it is important to regulate boats in the tidal-mash areas that are essential to defending our coastlines from sea-level rise. These mash ecosystems play a vital role in sequestering carbon, chemical runoff, and emissions from boats contribute to the destruction. There are no emissions regulations or inspections pertaining to recreational boats. The average boat that is being used for recreational use is over 20 years old. Many are inefficient and leak oil and gas. Although marine companies are focusing on limiting emissions in their production of new engines, I think government regulation is important. Vehicles have to pass trick emissions tests, I think boats should as well. I think programs like the "Green Boats" program are a great option to incentives a switch in the market to EV. If New York State wants to continue being the leader in the nation's fight against climate change I think it needs to address the issues in the water. | ||
| Thomas,Sy | Town of Lockport IDA | I am commenting as a citizen of NY by also as an Economic Development professional charged with increasing jobs and ensuring a stable tax base for the Town of Lockport and NY. My #1 concern is that this scoping document like the creation of the CLCPA itself was formulated with little if any dialogue with Utilities, Business Advocacy organizations or Economists. My hope is that these public hearings and comments will be viewed and weighed equally. The proposed regulations and metrics around eliminating natural gas in newly constructed or expanded businesses and homes are at best irresponsible. WNY winters are 50% colder than downstate and our housing stock is older and owned by lower income individuals. To move to electric heat at the levels you propose is impossible given the well-known existing issues with the electric grid and will require Billions of dollars of investment and years to expand. One need only to look to Texas who relies heavily on electric heat and how 1 brief 2-week cold snap took down their grid to a point of economic and personal harm. Our IDA business park has inadequate electrical capacity now to accommodate a simple 2 MW addition for a single business yet alone be able to support conversions away from natural gas as a heat source. The inflationary pressures businesses are feeling currently will pale in comparison to increased expense for electricity under this plan. And the looming added expense with no certainty on timelines or ultimate expense will be a major damper to economic development in NY. Your scoping plan needs to eliminate your aggressive metrics and instead incentivize key renewables such as green hydrogen and renewable natural gas. | |
| Christopher,Deemer | This all sounds achievable on paper but remember the law of unintended consequences is always in force. The hubris of New York's "Climate Leadership" blinds us to the costs of requiring expensive changes to current buildings and prohibitive costs on new ones. If we are too far ahead of other states people here will move away in greater numbers than they do now. When these costs prove to be annoyingly high, the electorate will repeal the plan, or the smart folks will move to Florida where they will not be so eager to rush to zero emissions life. Big business cannot sustain an entire economy. Many, many smaller businesses have to be a part of the economy for full employment and the well-being of society as a whole. Don't increase the barriers of entry to owning a home or operating a business so high that they flee the state to pursue opportunities elsewhere. I have 5 children who have fled the state to make their way in the world. | ||
| Elva,Manee | Most of NYS is rural. The towns and homes that dot the rural landscape need more consideration in your plan. Changes to vehicles and homes must be appropriate, affordable and supported with infrastructure. Cookie cutter solutions for the whole state will not serve all New Yorkers. | ||
| Christopher,Anderson | Nordic GeoSolutions, LLC | As a small business owner and stakeholder in the agricultural sector, US Army Reserve veteran, and former community leader, I urge the state to take concerted and bold action on addressing climate change. We need our state to be net-carbon zero as quickly and comprehensively as possible. The climate crisis is the biggest challenge that we are facing, and we need our elected officials to put aside partisan gamesmanship, and stop the misinformation and misleading for political gain. Climate change is already here, and is accelerating. The generations to come, my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, need us to act now based on real science, real data, and real life experiences that are self-evident in revealing the severity of climate change. The technology is already here, green energy is already cheaper in many instances than carbon-centric options, and the costs of not acting are infinitely greater than just being responsible and making the changes now. Please, do not listen to the voices of ignorance and resistance. We can lead New York forward, to be ahead of the curve, to a prosperous and sustainable future, and be leaders to the rest of the nation and world that needs to be shown that we can act boldly and without partisan selfishness. Let's come together and do the right thing for our climate and our generations that will follow us. | |
| William,Moyse | Another unrealistic plan to injure business and freedom in New York state. Another reason for people to leave the state. | ||
| Evan,Romer | The plan should address diverting building waste from landfills, by charging fees for disposal of materials, and incentivizing reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. Address diverting concrete and asphalt from waste streams. | ||
| Mark,Bremer | SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry | ||
| MD SAHADAT,HOSSAIN | SUNY College of Environmental Scienc e and Forestry | On behalf of SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, we are submitting comments in response to the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan published on January 1, 2022 to inform the Council of additional research regarding increase and adoption of electric vehicles in the Multifamily Unit Dwelling (MUD).' Because there are no synergies in policies for synchronizing and harmonizing between these two sectors for this transition of mobility i.e., adoption of EVs for MUD, We recommend to include strategies for adopting EV in MUD by addressing current EV adoption problems in multifamily by learnings from other countries or locations. For example, studies in Sweden and Norway have showed that people are comparatively less anxious about limited EV range than easy access to charging stations. In addition, the noticeable findings and suggestions from the Michigan, North Carolina, Massachusetts, California case studies could be incorporated into the inclusion of parking space design for lowering grid load and cost optimization for EVs in MUD. The onsite battery swapping (BS) technology can be installed in MUD and studies in China found this technology is cost effective and popular to EV users , , . Moreover, policy can be adopted like London to allot 20% parking space as charging point in MUD or proportional allotment of parking space for EVs practicing in Gothenburg, Sweden . Aside of, increasing battery recycling facilities are also needed to be included in these policies. | |
| Gerri,Wiley | Electric utilities business model of profit-making does not serve the public interest and climate stabilization. Here are three examples that represent barriers they have erected to stall/kill solar development: 1. Customer Benefit Contribution (CBC) charge is effectively a solar tax costing solar owners $7-$10 per month. It took effect January 1, 2022 and applies to net metering customers who install solar systems after that date. Utility companies claim that they need to charge their non-solar customers more money in order to make up for the revenue they lose from the Net Metering of clean energy. Making the switch to clean, solar energy is a significant financial investment that benefits the entire grid. 2. Subscription solar customers have been facing delays in utility billing anywhere from two to six months, as utilities delayed designing and implementing programs to automate the process. 3. Solar projects face long delays in connecting to the grid. Utilities will do what the Public Service Commission demands of them. Laws need to be put in place that eliminate these barriers and foster “public service” over shareholder service. | ||
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | ||
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | ||
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | ||
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | ||
| Sara,Culotta | |||
| Chandra,Bocci | Sunrise Kids NYC | I urge the Climate Action Council to adopt the strongest possible measures to meet New York's commitment to the goals of the CLCPA. As the mother of young children, I fear for their future. Only aggressive action will stem the tide of the climate crisis that will affect their lives and the lives of THEIR children. New York must continue to be a national leader in climate policy. We can be a laboratory for best practices in carbon emission reductions across all sectors: buildings, transportation and power generation. The CAC must not dilute its thoughtful strategies in order to give in to fears of short-term disruption or appease special interests. Future generations will be the judges. | |
| Emily,Rinck | |||
| Peter,Bardaglio | 1) Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, increasing to 80% by 2030. ? Require a per ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, while also expanding policies and programs to encourage individual and large-scale reuse of building materials. ? Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot programs. ? Develop public informational resources working in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (state agencies, local governments, contractors, property owners). ? Support local governments to adopt requirements that all sites slated for full removal must be deconstructed rather than demolished by 2026. 2) Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. ? Adopt codes for new construction that enable the incorporation of reused materials. ? Support workforce training of green jobs, with deconstruction as an important component. ? Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. ? Enact a production tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into intermediate products to locate facilities in New York. ? Provide financial support to municipalities/counties for the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges. 3) Develop plans to divert concrete and asphalt, CCD’s two largest components, from waste streams. ? Require local governments, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to use a paving base of 100 percent recycled asphalt and concrete, and to encourage on-site street recycling that includes recycled aggregate. ? Establish an environmentally sound plan for waste resulting from the demolition of New York’s interstate highways. ? Support research, facilities, and programs that focus on the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt shingles, gypsum (drywall) and masonry. | ||
| Thomas & Barbara,Clare | Our first concern is: Where is all the money going to come from for this overwhelmingly huge transition.....the taxpayer ? We are already being taxed to death. This plan is full of subsidies for low income areas and corporations. With the high rate of inflation and the economy tanking, is the middle class supposed to be paying for this as well ? How is everyone going to have the financial means to do this ? How are we expected to pay for all of these changes ? How are we financially expected to replace 2 automobiles, gas furnace, gas hot water tank, gas clothes dryer, gas stove, pressure washer, weed whacker, chain saw, gas edger, gas grill, lawnmower , snowblower, rototiller, and generator ? Another concern we have is that the people trying to pass this through legislation are not as affected as the general population. Many government officials get perks that the rest of us don't get like automobiles, housing stipends , etc. Please understand that we are not against finding alternative energy sources, but this plan seems like it's being crammed down our throats with the public having no alternatives and no say. We would like to conclude by stating : how are we supposed to pay for this transition ? This is going to be a major expense that we can not afford. | ||
| judy,Robinson | I cannot wait to get out of this state. Until the world takes climate change seriously, we are only condeming ourselves to failure, with high taxes and utilities. The climate will change even with the ALL of the mandates the dreamers can impose. The seas will still rise. | ||
| Avery,Cole | I urge the Climate Action Council to adopt the strongest possible measures to meet New York's commitment to the goals of the CLCPA. As the mother of young children, I fear for their future. Only aggressive action will stem the tide of the climate crisis that will affect their lives and the lives of THEIR children. New York must continue to be a national leader in climate policy. We can be a laboratory for best practices in carbon emission reductions across all sectors: buildings, transportation and power generation. The CAC must not dilute its thoughtful strategies in order to give in to fears of short-term disruption or appease special interests. Future generations will be the judges. | ||
| Paula,Ruggerio | This is not a good plan don't take away gas services natural or appliances or for automobile. With different storms in our area you will leaving people with no power and no way to be able to travel if the electricity fails which it has many times this action plans will hurt the American people like all the other bone head items that this current administration has done along with the experts for covid they should all be put in jail for treason from the president who should not be in office he cheated | ||
| Richard,Weeks | I support the goals and aspirations of the CAC. As a long time supporter of RMI (formerly the Rocky Mountain Institute), I have kept myself informed of these issues for many years. Having the opportunity to visit super efficient houses and feel how comfortable and quiet they are as well as being healthy and cost effective I know that the technologies to produce superior buildings at better than competitive costs are well established. Having purchased our first battery electric car over seven years ago, and adding a second one three years ago I can testify how well they perform, and anyone paying attention to energy prices knows how much money than can save by running their vehicle on electricity instead of petroleum products. Basic psychology and economics tell us that if we want to motivate people to make wise choices it is very useful to have the price of a good or service reflect the true costs. To this end a carbon tax / fee is essential to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. This tax / fee can be rebated back to the citizen to avoid it being regressive. In fact most people will be winners under this system. And having a duel incentive to move to greater efficiency and cleaner sources of energy is a win, win, win for everyone (except possibly those heavily invested in fossil fuels; a small minority). | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | As we transition to a decarbonized, electrified system, climate-induced extreme weather will continue to challenge us. Although it will be expensive to move utility lines underground, I think the reliability of the system requires utilities to do so. Costs can be minimized by eliminating the current practice of vegetation management. A timeline for burying utility lines should be established, starting with lines most vulnerable to power outages. I recently experienced the effects of a microburst that destroyed all in its path. There will be more of these and other devastating experiences. An ordinary hurricane recently caused trees to fall on lines in the Southern Tier, resulting in over 70,000 people without power, some for as long as a week. The lines need to be protected underground. | ||
| Zoe,Potter-Gamage | Oakwood Friends School | I think as a young person the government should try to go off of fossil fuels and on to renewable energy. I want a better future. I am very excited to see the effort of the local government and citizens by trying to get off fossil fuels, and many other things. Let's at the very least, try and help the world! | |
| Joyce,Hartsfield | I watched a webinar on the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan and I was very impressed with the scope and details of the plan and would like to see all of the suggestions implemented in order to save this planet. | ||
| Susan,Augenbraun | It's great that the plan encourages the use of Zero-Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs)! But especially because many of the plan's suggestions are market-based, the plan should keep in mind that it's necessary to work with people in disadvantages communities so that they have these options. We need to account for charging infrastructure and electricity costs as well as offering loans for the vehicles themselves. Please ensure that those communities most vulnerable to and impacted by the climate emergency are not left behind in the transition. | ||
| Sharon O,Wiedeck | How do they think people can afford this? I like my gas appliances and my car and out electric grid cannot handle this. Also the car prices are out of most peoples budget . This insane to think we can do this and we cannot afford more increases. I am on a fixed income and it is hard already to pay my utilities | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Action: I ask that the recommendations in the final Scoping Plan include a cessation of all public funding of major-polluting CAFOs. In NY, CAFOs are regulated by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. According to the USDA, just 12% of New York dairies account for nearly 70% of New York’s dairy cow population and are responsible for the vast majority of associated methane emissions. In the Draft Scoping Plan, I ask that you replace much of the language in AF9 and AF10 with language calling for an end to public investments in technologies, including expensive cover and flare systems and biodigesters, that enable the accelerating concentration of livestock farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). New York State should regulate and hold accountable the small number of very large NY dairies whose manure storage systems produce the majority of agricultural GHG emissions, while also polluting wetlands and waterways. New York State should also fund transformative practices that work upstream of manure storage, and prioritize practices that smaller producers can adopt. It is important to ensure that Climate Resilient Farming Program funds are directed towards reducing both enteric and manure sources of agricultural methane emissions, and utilize these funds to build climate resiliency rather than entrenching current manure management practices that rely on liquid systems of manure handling and storage. As you recognize in this chapter, CAFO's are a major reason why agriculture in New York State is not yet a net carbon sink but a greenhouse gas contributor. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | |
| Michael ,Land | I do believe that we as a nation need to cut down on all pollutants. But at what cost to the working class. It seems that the direction we are being forced to use is electric , in a system that is over a loaded beyond its capacity. It’s bad enough that we will have to pay to have 50 amps plugs to charge up cars the government is forcing on us now, and than adding more amperage for electric stoves, and water heaters. All of these issues need to be voted on by residents of this state . | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: Agriculture and Forestry, which are critical to so many local economies in our state, should be supported in concrete ways so that they remain resilient in the face of our rapidly changing climate. I ask that the recommendations in the final Scoping Plan include protecting and restoring our soil resources, and strengthening urban and rural economies, by providing income to those who regenerate soil while producing food, fiber, building materials, and medicine. One route to promote this would be to design and implement a Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) Program, with community involvement, that rewards farmers for the many interrelated and essential ecosystem services that their farms provide. Thank you! Sara S. Gronim | ||
| J,M | Carbon is what the plants BREATHE in! Plant more greenery & there'd be less carbon | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: With access to healthy and reasonably priced food so essential to the health of us all, it is critical that the final Scoping Plan address inequities and barriers to success in farming. Here in Brooklyn, as elsewhere in urban areas of New York State, we have small but vibrant farm spaces that produce healthy food locally. In rural New York I know that the number of small farms continues to decline, a development that weakens us all and threatens to leave us even more vulnerable to the further climate disruptions that are now inevitable. Here are some recommendations I hope to see in the final Scoping Plan: --Address inequities in our farming and food systems including systemic racism, to build a “stronger, more resilient, and more equitable agricultural community in New York State.” (Quote from Commissioner of Agriculture, Richard Ball’s letter introducing the 2021 Diversity and Racial Equity Working Group Report (PDF).) --Include a mitigation strategy in Climate-Focused Bioeconomy to create programs and target funding to enable access to land, capital, and farming resources for underserved groups including BIPOC, women, LGBTQIA+, low-income, veterans, beginning farmers, and undocumented farmworkers. --Ensure that at least 40% of all funds expended by the state under this plan are invested in underserved communities. --Ensure that members of all underserved communities are able to participate in the design and implementation of all new initiatives. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: Investing in certified organic farms is one of the most important things we can do. While this will lower our greenhouse gas emissions, it will also increase our local resiliency in the face of the rising global temperatures that are now inevitably in our near future Certified organic and agroecological farms that build soil carbon, increase resilience to extreme weather, and reduce erosion, run-off, and nitrous oxide emissions. Consequently I ask you to do the following: --Include a mitigation strategy in the Agriculture and Forestry Sector to convert 25% of NY farmland to organic by 2030 through massively scaled-up technical assistance programs, tax subsidies, and grant funding. --Call for the establishment of a comprehensive soil health program that nurtures a culture of soil care among farmers, their neighbors, and their customers with sustained support from public policy. Include, in AF12, a requirement that agriculture and forestry projects that receive public funding use soil health practices as defined in Agriculture & Markets (AGM) CHAPTER 69, ARTICLE 11-B, § 151-l. --Set statewide soil health goals to track progress, increase accountability, and ensure the permanence of soil-sequestered carbon. --Discourage the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. The prohibition of synthetic fertilizers in organic production reduces a significant agricultural source of nitrous oxide as well as energy use. According to the EPA, nitrous oxide emissions from soils comprise 50.4% of all domestic agricultural emissions. --Include out-of-state production of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in the greenhouse gas inventory of NY farms. Strengthening this mode of agriculture will strengthen our local food supply while protecting the health of farmers and farm workers. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Jill,Robinson | While the goals of this plan MAY be well intentioned, this is not realistic. In no way does NY State have the electric capacity to power a fully electric state. Not to mention the cost on state residents...I know I am planning to leave the state before this plan goes into effect. It just is a recipe for disaster and not one I'm willing to live through. You are doing nothing but shuttering businesses and forcing people to leave. This seems to have become NY's mantra. | ||
| Richard,Eldridge | I believe this plan is to much to quickly and will hurt our economy. | ||
| John,Lippincott | Hi, My oil heat provider is against your plan. That means I am for it. Thank you. Cheers, John | ||
| Ken,Palmer | Believe this Climate is way off base. Millions of people would have to make a complete change in their living conditions. By the time you complete all of these changes the electric grid would be over loaded, insufficient and un-affordable for the average home owner. | ||
| Matthew,Costa | Moving forward with policy regarding climate change and setting dates for elimination of existing systems prior to building reliable systems is a very concerning plan. Whether it be switching from gas to electric (which would be incredibly expensive and difficult to overcome for the lower middle class), or removing all fossil fuel generation, there needs to be a tried and true tested alternative that would be be devastatingly expensive for the middle class. Science before policy. | ||
| H. Alex,Masciana | The transition to all electrical systems will be detrimental to the environment since the process requires huge mining operations of the metals for transmission, storage, etc not to mention the possible electromagnetic effects on the environment, humans, animals, possible carcinogenic, the waste and the amount of energy co sumed to make all these components for a system that is very vulnerable to failure without sun, wind and backup battery supply during storms, cloudy days, etc. We should not rush into a wish list of remedies if the remedies are worse than what we have now, clean natural gas that heats very efficiently in the winter and replaces coal, oil and more volatile hydrogen or propane. Electrical is one step forward but 3 steps back. | ||
| Alexander,Romanitch | I belive that Banning natural gas and going to all electrical in such a short times is ridiculous and can not be done properly. As it is with our electrical system now,we can not keep up and you want to add more. | ||
| Michelle,Pelan | |||
| Kevin,Krause | Everybody across the entire planet agrees that we want to do what's right for the planet, however your plans are far fetched and unresearched and will cripple the state. It's imperative for you to understand that natural gas is a very efficient fuel that heats many homes, businesses, hospitals, public schools, Senior Care facilities, shopping centers, and most importantly private residences many of whom are lower income that they're only choice of affordable fuel is that of natural gas. I am personally heating my home with oil and it's very inefficient and dirty burning. I would much rather the state come after high admitting low efficiency fuel sources instead of that of natural gas. Also going to a solar and wind powered electrical grid is far-fetched and we are technically not up to speed in order to handle that. The electrical grid is already in disrepair and outdated and can't even handle summer surges of air conditioners turning on. Furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect the population to be able to afford the expenditure of conversion to all electric heat weatherby heat pump or geothermal. Likewise, the population would have to rectify their current electric system in their house to be able to accommodate the load associated with electric heat. Any of us can only afford be there essentials currently after the effects of what covid-19 has forced upon us. I don't want government subsidies to help me change something that isn't broken, I'm already footing that bill regardless by paying my taxes. By paying out Publix bills to convert inadvertently will raise the cost of living and cripple us. I plead with you to understand the repercussions of your actions, many of you do not understand how the utilities actually operate. We want sustainable energy alternatives in conjunction with already existing utilities. Imagine a power outage without having the option of back up power generation at a hospital, school, fire department or police department. | ||
| Shirley,Ellsworth | I have heard that about some of the plans in the CAC that are very disturbing. The no new gas service to existing buildings starting 2024 No natural gas with new construction starting in 2024 No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water or clothes drying No gas auto sales by 2035. How are people going to heat their homes, cook their food. The electrical grid can't support all the time what is required today. Lets put NY state back into a third world environment. I can't say just how much this plan disturbs me. | ||
| Baruch,Blum | Thank you for the opportunity to offer feedback on the draft scoping plan. But please keep in mind that the feedback you get can be skewed by the content of the plan itself. 85% reduction by 2050 is not soon enough, and many people are too despairing at the slow incrementalism of this approach to take the energy and the time to offer feedback. Meanwhile, especially with the inclusion of severely flawed solutions such as biofuels, "renewable" natural gas, waste incineration, "green" hydrogen, and dependence on carbon capture, it encourages those who are invested in slowing down climate action. A drastically bolder plan would encourage more engagement from those who see the climate crisis as a real emergency. | ||
| Ray,Bennefield | Are the same people that screamed in the early eighties that the earth was interring a new ice age the same people screaming about global warming today ? Why are you people so hell bent on destroying the American way of life ? You are pushing your anti American agenda on our children. If your predictions were correct New York city would be under water today. Look around you at the disaster you are causing with our economy. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | While the Plan does recognize the significance of heavy-traffic areas like ports and depots to the climate crisis, it should also make recommendations that address the burdens last mile warehouses and just-in-time delivery make to global warming. The Plan recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopt regulations similar to California’s Advanced Clean Fleets proposal that require that medium- and heavy-duty trucks in use in heavy-traffic areas become Zero-Emission Vehicles by 2035. This proposal should integrate concerns with last-mile fulfillment centers, just-in-time stocking practices, and next-day delivery offerings. Such fulfillment centers are often placed in environmental justice communities that consequently see a steep rise in truck traffic. The transition to ZEV’s would certainly lower air pollution but would not in itself improve safety or community quality of life. Shifting from distribution designs that prioritize speed to ones that prioritize the fewest miles traveled would reduce energy consumption while improving safety. We have particularly strong concerns about this here in Brooklyn. The neighborhood of Red Hook, near where I live, recently saw four huge last-mile warehouses built locally. This neighborhood already has air pollution from a nearby peaker plant, from a major elevated highway, and from cruise ships that dock on its waterfront. The heavy truck traffic supplying these warehouses adds substantially to the air pollution burden. And smaller trucks fan out to all adjoining neighborhoods, adding their emissions. I know more rural and suburban areas of New York have a different configuration of problems stemming from this shift from in-store purchasing to on-line purchasing. But we all share the wider distribution of small truck traffic. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Danny ,Sobenko | Dear Sirs, California has such a plan in action today and it’s a disaster. They have to produce only 40% of electric from renewable sources and they have brownouts and blackouts constantly. This plan is 80% from renewable sources, imagine what that means. I guess we’re going back to the days before electricity was invented, better start buying candles. | ||
| Grace,Patterson | I am an ally to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy who governs their Territories and citizens according to the Great Law of Peace. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy are sovereign Nations with political, cultural, and religious agency over their ancestral homelands that is New York State. The NYS Climate Council have excluded them from the most pivotal legislation on climate change ever. This is a violation of their treaty rights and human rights. To redress: I ask the NYS Climate Council create a stand-alone working group to establish a state to Nation partnership: 1) Where Indigenous representation is chosen by the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora Nations respectively; 2) To ensure their political status is not supplanted under a racial group categorization, and 3) To radically challenge the NYS Climate Act Scoping Plan in its integrity and motive regarding Indigenous people, which fundamentally affects marginalized communities. | ||
| Katy,McClellan | I recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as sovereign Nations with political and cultural agency. Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. They are well informed about how to meet the energy needs of their people and NYS’ ambitious climate goals; their voices are critical. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. The omission of the Haudenosaunee not only reveals the inequality and injustice they endure, but continues to build on NYS’ tactics to keep the Haudenosaunee invisible and marginalized- culturally, spiritually, and economically. Include the Haudenosaunee- do the right thing. | ||
| Joseph,Burke | You people are already taxing us to death and expect us to pay a lot more money to make everything electric. Have you even considered the fact that the electric grid can barely support what the current load is? | ||
| omar,abdallah | D.V. Brown & Associates, Inc | ||
| E. Kevin,Conley | Capital Region Interfaith Creation Care Coalition | ||
| William ,Maier | I very much support New York State’s breakthrough Climate Law, which sets climate-protective goals and a reasonable, effective timetable. According to the latest UN report, we are on the brink of an unlivable world. We all should support this law! Climate action is a global imperative. New York State is now poised to do its part. Unsurprising objections from the fossil fuel industry must not reduce our conviction or water down our goals and timeline. Concerns from disadvantaged communities must be acknowledged and addressed. A just transition must be a critical component of any climate plan, and it should be a priority for New York State. Failures by governments to head off severe climate change are piling up. With each failed effort, we move closer to intractability. The timeline gets shortened, the slope steepens, and the political challenge rises closer to impossible. Failure by New York State could have far-reaching implications, as it could be another major blow to the possibility humankind will act to address the crisis. For the last ten years, I have supported an economy-wide carbon fee and dividend approach to emission reductions. This involves setting a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions and using the revenue to provide a cash-back payment to all households. NYS should employ such a mechanism, applying it to all fossil fuels, not just those from the electrical power sector. I would also encourage some amount of leadership by NYS to fund and direct necessary transitions. We may need to simply electrify the buildings in whole communities to get the most benefits of scale. Similarly, transforming the transportation infrastructure of NYS regions in partnership with municipalities may be beneficial. I strongly believe in developing a better network of safe, two-wheeled vehicle pathways. Reaching New York State’s Climate Law goals in accordance with its timeline is imperative for a livable future. Thank you for this opportunity. Bill Maier | ||
| Sam,M | Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. As required by New York’s nation-leading climate law, the CLCPA, climate and environmental justice must be the driver of the outcomes of this scoping plan. To achieve this, please ensure that the following recommendations on the Buildings Sector are included in the final draft: The Buildings chapter calls for the adoption of advanced zero-emissions codes and standards to enhance building performance and phase out fossil fuel combustion appliances and technologies following an accelerated timeline that will require near-term enabling action by NYS legislators. While the chapter acknowledges concerns raised by the Climate Justice Working Group regarding the need to front-load investments, technical assistance, and other resources in disadvantaged communities (DACs) to ensure those communities are not left stranded in an aging and expensive fossil fuel-based energy system, it fails to align strategies that prioritize investments in DACs with the proposed timelines for the adoption of new codes and standards. These strategies must move in lockstep to create the conditions for a Just Transition. The chapter calls for the creation of a new Retrofit and Electrification Readiness Fund. This should be created ASAP and capitalized at a minimum of $1 billion per year following the recommendations of the Energy Efficiency and Housing Advisory Panel. The Fund should provide targeted direct investments to DACs and the affordable housing sector. The Buildings chapter failed to advance recommendations from the Climate Justice Working Group around consumer and community protections that would guard against energy rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The following recommendations should be included in the final scoping plan: - Utility customer bill of rights - Safety net guarantee of affordable renewable energy to eve | ||
| Matthew,Palmer | I live in a rural area that frequently experiences power outages. The recent April snow storms highlight the fact the electric grid is not capable of supporting the current load levels, let alone future increased load levels imposed by the proposed electric building requirements. I currently burn wood as my primary heating source, and I have a highly efficient radiant heating system that utilizes propone. During the recent outage I was able to heat my home and cook without electricity. With the use of a gas generator I was able to power my propane system, well, etc for all my basic needs. Those in the area that had only electric heat, stoves, etc and were and without any generator back up were completely at the mercy of mother nature. Had weather conditions been colder, many people could not have survived. Interesting several of my neighbors who actually have solar panels that supply the grid, were still without power and were required to run generators to power their homes. This is a result of how the grid ties to independent solar. Which again shows the shortcomings of the system. I support smart climate solutions, but we must not allow ourselves to be blinded by feel good strategies on paper that in reality are not feasible. Before enacting any energy solution, a full assessment of the actual energy required to create the "green" energy should be fully vetted, as well as, all green house gas emissions required for the life cycle process of manufacturing, construction and operating. If zero emission energy usage is the least energy intensive, green house gas emitting and most economical process from conception through decommissioning, than that is great. But from what scientific research currently shows, that is not always the case. | ||
| Miriam,Edwin | n/a | ||
| Dennis,Higgins | full comment here https://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/columns/guest-commentary-solar-wind-cannot-meet-new-yorks-energy-needs/article_58a5b8ad-dda7-5863-bf51-75d04caf276c.html The Climate Protection and Community Safety Act was passed in 2019. Since then, data from the independent grid operator, NYISO, shows we are using more fossil-fuel-generated electricity both from in-state power plants and neighboring states. It’s reasonable to ask if we are going in the right direction. The members of the Climate Action Council established under CLCPA were chosen by former Gov. Cuomo: the draft scoping document the council recently released (https://climate.ny.gov/Our-Climate-Act/Draft-Scoping-Plan) was perhaps predetermined. New York apparently hopes to power its two-trillion-dollar economy, and supply electricity to its 20 million residents by installing offshore wind and building out a thousand square miles of onshore wind turbines and solar panels. In public comment sessions, the scoping plan has been lambasted by labor, rural New Yorkers, energy experts and residents concerned about rising energy costs and higher taxes. Hundreds of labor union members showed up at metro area hearings complaining that the state’s energy plan may cut existing jobs at upstate nuclear plants while creating almost no permanent jobs in renewables. The 2,000 acre 250-megawatt Mill Point 1 solar farm in Glen will have a capacity factor of 14% — so its average generation will only be 35 MW — and it is expected to provide between two and four full-time jobs. The 30,000-acre 340-MW Alle Catt wind farm in western New York comes with 13 permanent jobs. Adjusting generation for a 30% capacity factor, fifty square miles of land will provide an average capacity of 100 MW. For comparison, a nuclear facility on 240 acres can generate 2,000 MW at omore than 90% capacity factor and employs a thousand full-time workers. | ||
| Sarah,Axler | |||
| Stephen,Swanson | Lake George Plumbing | This is crazy, we have to become energy independent before we go 100% green. NY doesn't even have an electrical grid and infrastructure that can handle all the extra electric you want people to use. How can people afford this, it is impossible. We need oil and gas so we can make all the solar and wind components here in the US instead of buying everything from the Communist China. Once we make everything here, then we can make the transition, it can't happen with a flip of the switch. We need lower enegy prices now and your proposals do nothing to help that. Be realistic and use common sense. | |
| Jaime,Dubei | |||
| Jules,Hollander | |||
| Jason,Vassallo | If anyone here at all sees and acknowledges my comment, I thank you. After taking 2 courses in college this semester, I have become way more concerned for action when it comes to climate change. We have a lot of work to do when it comes to lowering our C02 emissions, using the electric grid less, straying away from depending on fossil fuels, and trying to help combat anything that produces greenhouse gases. My biggest concern is with agriculture and land. Deforestation being used to make up more farm land to feed cows constantly while producing more meat and using giant amounts of water has been a big concern for me. There was a documentary I saw not too long ago called Cowspiracy and Leonardo DiCaprio has even mentioned this before at the Paris Agreement meeting and in his documentary Before the Flood. We need to find better ways to address the world's demands for meat. I understand it is something that not everyone is willing or ready to talk about or wanting to address as one of the main causes for climate change, but I believe it is a big issue that seriously needs to be addressed and talked about because if the whole world stopped eating less meat, we wouldn't have to cause so much deforestation for all these cows, all the land needed, and all the water used on them. Please do something to address this issue. Thank you. | ||
| Paul,Gryga | The quick implementation of forcing electric vehicle use in upstate NY is not possible due to lack of charging infrastructure and cost. The only people that can practically use electric cars in upstate NY own 2 cars and have home charging stations to keep their electric vehicle charged up. This is a small percentage of the population. Our car gets 41 mpg on the highway with gasoline and low emissions, that is a livable and practical compromise towards clean air. | ||
| Martie,Ammerman | $35,000 added to my expenses to achieve this ridiculous plan would devastate my family. Get real and stop trying to force everyone to go electric! | ||
| Jason,Bruce | I vehemently disagree with the climate actions council views and approach to resolving these issues! | ||
| Alexandra,Dill | SUNY ESF | ||
| Sarah,Woodams | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. I encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies, including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| Sarah,Woodams | I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. | ||
| Sarah,Woodams | |||
| Torri,Shifelt | If you enact this plan it is going to drive everyone out of New York State. We need to heat our houses with gas,wood, oil or propane. The people that live in upstate new york rely on mainly wood as their primary heat as it is the least expensive way and also the only way when you have sub zero weather for most of the winter. By going to electric only is crazy. No one here could afford to heat their homes with electric or even install it. You will drive all of the people out of New York as no one can afford this plan. $35,000 most people do not even make in a year and that is the initial cost to turn your house to electric only. Then the cost of an electric bill during the winter would be well over $1000 per month. What are you trying to do push us out? You need to reconsider this plan or else this state will go under as no one can afford to live here!! | ||
| Pamela,DeWitt | We live in a home with an upstairs and downstairs. We had to go to gas, because we had electic, way back in the 80's. We could not afford it then, it was much too expensive and now at retirement age, I am really not going to be able to afford it. | ||
| Antonio,Reynoso | Brooklyn Borough President | ||
| Michael,Douglass | This plan will fail the stated goals unless nuclear power proliferation is included as a large component. | ||
| Adam,Zauner | Recommending the end of new gas powered vehicles after the 2035 at this time does not seem feasible. Especially in the Adirondack mountains. Between the change of elevations and the harsh winter conditions, the ranges of electric vehicles would not be practical, at least in those regions. | ||
| Carolynn,Fuller | This is totally nuts! Our home is primarily a natural gas home - heat, hot water, appliances. Why in the world would we want to switch to more costly electrical energy that is never solely going to be provided by wind (whose turbines end up in landfills when they need to be replaced) and solar (whose panels also need to be replaced). Electrical energy must always rely on natural gas or fossil fuels to provide for the inconsistencies of solar and wind. Completely opposed to this plan! | ||
| Nick,Bordieri | Farmer | You will give up electricity before you give up food. Do not turn our invaluable farmland into electricity production. We in NYS have the best environment for food production well into the climate crisis we are already experiencing. Don’t throw away this opportunity for a quick buck. | |
| Jan,Geniesse | I would like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. New Yorkers are already facing the impacts of climate change. The faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create, and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. | ||
| Emily,Selinger | 350brooklyn | The Plan recommends a number of ways in which New York State could encourage the purchase of ZEVs. These include variable parking fee and vehicle registration fees, undertaking feasibility studies for businesses with vehicle fleets that they need to transition to ZEVs, expanding NY’s Green Bank, and offering state backing for bank loans for ZEVs. The plan mentions assisting low- and middle-income New Yorkers with rebates to help them afford ZEVs. All of these are useful recommendations but NYS should do more to work with people in disadvantaged communities so ZEV’s become viable options for them. This will include attention to charging infrastructure and electricity costs as well as the cost of the vehicles themselves. Note, too, that references to self-driving vehicles and the “Internet-of-Things” point to developments that pose both safety and privacy risks, don’t offer improved pathways to zero emissions, and are priced out of the reach of low- and middle-income New Yorkers. They have no place here. | |
| John,Katsch | No to CAC plan. Costs would be too high for us. | ||
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades I would like to address Chapter 13: Electricity. We must realize that our electricity use will increase dramatically in the coming decades. We need to increase renewables such as wind and solar along with battery capacity. Energy efficiency is extremely important. The benefits of this plan are many. Our world will be quieter and have significantly less air pollution that impairs human health. Most importantly, our future climate will be far more stable. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project, Capital Region Chapter | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades. I would like to address Chapter 11: Transportation. Unfortunately, vehicles in New York account for 28% of our GHG. We desperately need to follow the protocols of the scoping plan to convert to EVs and build out charging stations. We need to expand public transportation powered by electricity. With this plan we will dramatically reduce air pollution and enjoy a more sustainable future. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Joanne,Boger | 350 Brooklyn | I am a long-time resident of Brooklyn very pleased with the scoping plan's recognition of transportation as one of the most critical sectors that needs rapid transition to lower greenhouse gas emissions. With our historic reliance on public transit, our residents have a "greener" transit profile than people elsewhere. And yet, since the public health crisis of Covid-19, our transit system has been challenged. On the one hand we suffered a loss of ridership in public transit as car traffic exploded. On the other hand, streets have been opened up for all kinds of non-vehicular uses -- biking, dining, and enjoying the cityscape on foot. The scoping plan needs to make sure that the growth in fulfillment centers and next-day delivery services is done with care. The "last-mile" delivery system may cause lower-income communities to experience high truck traffic, more accidents affecting pedestrians and increased air pollution. Shifting from distribution designs that prioritize speed to ones that prioritize the fewest miles traveled would reduce energy consumption while improving safety. | |
| Joanne,Boger | 350 Brooklyn | I am a retired Brooklynite with a deep concern for the future of the planet. I want our electricity sector to be modernized to meet our energy needs with low greenhouse gas emissions. We need to incentivize solar and wind sources of power in order to make the existing fossil fuel-burning power plants a thing of the past. The scoping plan could improve the electricity transition by making it clear that new fossil-fuel plants and infrastructure cannot be approved. If there is a need to upgrade any such plants, those upgrades must be clearly designated as temporary. And legal authority for owning and operating electricity generating facilities needs to be redesigned, so that more entities are permitted to design, invest in, and build wind and solar power. The incentives to expand these sources of power are not currently strong enough to bring about the critical investment that we need in order to meet the goals set out in the CLCPA. So existing privately owned utilities and existing public power authorities should be given the legal authority to move forward with renewable energy projects. Rooftop wind and solar incentives should also be stronger, to encourage the build up of "distributed" energy sources. | |
| wendy,randall | randall | The transition is all well and good, but the timeline is way off. How are folks supposed to afford vehicles, what about school buses, and the effect on school taxes? What about wood heat, and propane? I do not like the idea of all electric appliances especially stove/oven. People are fed up with the way things are going now, post COVID you cannot demand they change so fast. I don't know how you are going to have big machinery such as forestry equipment, farm equipment etc. run-on electricity. | |
| Lisa,Kilgore | First Baptist Church of Ithaca | Really not sure what to check. Our church wants very badly to transition our utilities off of fossil fuels. We actually have some solar panels on our roof. The reason I am commenting for our church "Green Team" is because we feel left out of any guidance AND financing to make the transitions happen. We are aware we don't pay taxes, but can you please bring non-profits into the discussion somehow who want to do the right thing. Thank youl. | |
| Kim,Roberts | NY residenf | Presently our home remains habitable during electrical outages due to natural gas heat and hot water. Do not make us dependent on electricity alone. We lose power at least 3 times each year. Electric as sole heating and water heating source would devastate our ability to remain independent in Winter weather emergencies. This idea is crippling to North Country Residents | |
| Jennifer,Leaver | NO. This plan, as written, is unacceptable. Too short of a time frame, no reliable, cost-effective alternatives, and we're in a crisis now. Our government is corrupt, the government is failing as is our educational system. Let's work on health care and public education FIRST and keep our gas drilling, pipelines, and economy WORKING to bring prices down. | ||
| Robert,Meyers | I understand and fully agree we need to decarbonize. There needs to be a flexible timetable to reprioritize based on unforeseen circumstances. There also needs to be a fund built to help families under duress, that meet certain criteria. One source of funding could be the dollars that government wants to use for student loan forgiveness.. | ||
| Kevin,Joiner | At a time of record inflation, global supply chain interruptions, sky rocketing prices the best plan that can be created is to cause prices to go even higher to address the collapse of the planet that was already projected to happen years ago? The cost of green energy isn't clean with the rare metals required and the non-renewable and non-biodegradable materials used in clean energy. This is a ridiculous plan and should be scrapped. | ||
| Scott ,Doyle | I’m a 58 year old professional. Based on New York’s projections for “unrealistic” climate mandates. Homes fully electrified, no sales of gasoline powered vehicles, no use natural gas, etc, etc, etc. I WILL BE SELLING MY HOME IN UPSTATE NY, AND MOVE TO STATE THAT IS NOT EXHIBITING EXTREMISM THAT NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT IS. I WILL SPEND MY RETIREMENT INCOME IN A STATE THAT IS NOT DOING EVERYTHING TO IT CAN TO SUSPEND GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AN EXAMPLE OF POORLY THOUGHT OUT NEW YORK STATE LAWS AND IMPLEMENTATION IS REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 575b. THIS LAW WAS DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED TO ENCOURAGE GREEN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT INTO THE IMPLICATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. I HAPPEN TO BE A MEMBER OF ONE OF THOSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. RPTL -575b WILL HAVE A CRIPPLING AFFECT ON PROPERTY OWNERS. THE FOLKS MAKING THE LAWS ARE NOT REPRESENTING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. IT’S UNSUSTAINABLE.. WE WILL LEAVE New York State within 5 years. | ||
| Joan,Harriss | It is critical that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy usage, and ensure climate justice. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of New Yorkers. | ||
| Janice H,Armer | I live in the Mohawk Valley, surrounded by Amish farms. There are 10,000 Amish people now in the Mohawk Valley alone. There are many other settlements throughout NY. Will the Amish be able to escape the new climate laws due to their religious exemption. Since they are off grid, they run their property on farm diesel and propane. They all heat with wood, with many burning coal as well. The more conservative groups use kerosene for lighting and cooking. I feel this is an EXTREMELY important issue. I don't feel that climate laws, in any way whatsoever, should fall under religious exemptions. This matter must be addressed with the high number of Amish families in New York state. We have had issues with blatent violations of the outside burning rules, including spring burning ban. One neighbor was ticketed by En Con for burning an entire home addition, all in one pile. | ||
| Jeffrey,Leland | Resident | This is an overreach on the part of government. Natural Gas is a clean source of energy. Gasoline remains the most responsible source of energy for transportation purposes. You will drive more taxpayers from our state which is already hemorrhaging residents and businesses. Please use common sense solutions not drastic measures which satisfy on a small fraction of your constituents. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Attached comments document electric service costs associated with residiential home heating and car charging. | has attachment | |
| Mary,Francis | People should have choices for personal property heating we should have choice of gas powered vehicles I can not afford $35000 additional expense on fixed income are you trying to put more people out of work by saying all electric. Look at California with all brown outs with them and electric issues. Do you want that across New York image New York City with out power as upstate needs power to. Are you willing to crash power grid as it currently can not handle our usage now especially during winter storms and summer when everyone is using air conditioners | ||
| Joshua,Sherman | Offer an affordable option before tearing down the current system. I see no reason why we cannot change to all electric. The issue is twofold... you have no reasonably affordable alternative in an ever tightening and expensive market with little to no wage growth over inflation. So who can afford this while payimg their current bills?? You also have an electric grid that barely handles current loads, let alone the potential increased load from this all electric push. The infrastructure around the entire US power grid is fragile and archaic at best. Our own assessments have proven this from multiple studies over the last 2 decades and have been continually ignored. Update the grid to handle the increased load before you even begin to push for the transition. If you do not, you are setting up for a series of disasters that will cost far more than the estimated budget for this endeavor. | ||
| Robin,Jansen | Jansen | Instead of ‘take the farm land’ and forget about producing food, my recommendations is as follows – 1. Instead of farm land, cover all parks and recreation open areas, with solar panels. Central Park has plenty of room for solar panels and maybe even some 700 Ft wind turbines. Parks covered with solar panels, either ground mounted or pole mounted would supply a large part of the energy needs of cities. Let the people that reside in the city face the consequences of their choices. The more visible ‘green energy’ is to the people using energy, the better. Energy should be produced where it is used. 2. Turn all buildings, residences, apartment buildings and office/retail space into micro grids by having solar panels on all horizontal surfaces and vertical siding. Battery energy storage systems either on the roof or in the basement as backup power for when the sun doesn’t shine. 3. All large buildings must put tall turbine-like towers covered with the new style solar panels that can tilt to face the sun at the edge of their parking lots. Open parking lots should have canopies over the lot with solar panels on the roof of those canopies. 4. Change utility pricing to be consumption pricing. If a residence goes over its monthly ‘allotment’, charge a huge consumption upcharge. I have solar panels on our roof. I know exactly how much power is produced daily and how much electricity I use. We use propane and I know exactly how much propane we use. I don’t just pay the bill I look at the bill. Get people to realize how much they use so behaviors can be changed. Demand goes up (consuming more) then the price goes up. Cell phone apps are everywhere, this should be a no brainer to create in conjunction with utilities. People will monitor what they use and modify their behavior or pay more. | |
| Mary,Harvey | The draft scoping plan is wrong we are Americans and have the right to decide if we want to use gas in homes, cars etc. The government has no right to tell us what to use or drive. This government needs to think of the people not what u want. We don't want electric cars are u going to buy them for us, pay for the batteries think not. Stop trying to control People. We have the right to decide what we what. The government is forcing people not to live in New State. Everytime we turn around there are more laws and rules. If this happens alot of people will be leaving new York state. It's already hard enough to live here. High taxes, high gas tax, now u want to tell people what they can and can't use gas . Wake up Governor think of the people not just yourself. Seems the government is trying to control the people this is USA, there are other things to worry about and u are pushing this electric crap on people. There are a lot of people that live paycheck to paycheck. Help get inflation down, cost of food down. Think with your heads for once the government is not taking care of the people in USA. No everything is going to over to another country. No climate act/ draft scoping plan. We the people will not take anymore laws this is America freedom of speech. Stop with this draft scoping. It is unfair to America. U want to drive electric cars go for it some of us don't and who can afford a electric car. New York has alot of low income people, but government doesn't care about that all u think about is lining your pockets with tax payers money. New York state will become a ghost town yet | ||
| Joan,Mckeon | I lived in Hannacroix, NY for 40 years the last 20 years of that time was ruined by my neighbors outdoor wood burning boiler which he burned 24/7/365 because he heated his water with it. I tried EVERYTHING to make it stop but couldn’t because the DEC defended the neighbor’s woodburning. I want to breathe the cleanest air i can breathe! I can’t comprehend how NY can make me breathe the filthy toxic air which is the product of burning wood. I finally moved because i could stand it no longer. Now Im in a neighborhood in Guilderland where people burn wood for fun. Make it stop. | ||
| Ben,Gruber | Thank you so much for allowing the public to comment on such an important bill. The passage of a plan such as this will be incredible for the state of New York and will be to the benefit of all New Yorkers. What I am most excited about by the buildings section of this bill is the fact that it hits on the largest source of emissions in the state. Approximately 70% of all GHG emissions to be exact. This portion of the plan is absolutely critical to the success of the state in reducing GHG emissions. Upgrading buildings in New York will also have the added benefit of reducing the health burden faced by New Yorkers, particularly lower income residents, as well as creating new jobs. It is also critical that the plan continues to hold that new buildings may not be constructed which will use fossil fuels as a source of heat. However, this bill lacks declarative statements on a source of funding for the electrification of buildings. The bill must also find ways to incentivize the usage of heating pumps. One way to solve the incentive issue would be to find a way for landlords to better subdivide the meter cost. Once again, thank you so much for allowing the public to comment on this critical portion of the plan. | ||
| Jeanne,Mathewson | Do this sooner than too late. Our health and our children’s very lives are at stake. This will be expensive so lower income people will need financial assistance for it. | ||
| JOHN,JOSEPH | The electricity supply will not be ready to replace foscil fuel. | ||
| Anne,Dunlap | I am an ally to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy who governs their Territories and citizens according to the Great Law of Peace. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy are sovereign Nations with political, cultural, and religious agency over their ancestral homelands that is New York State. The NYS Climate Council have excluded them from the most pivotal legislation on climate change ever. This is a violation of their treaty rights and human rights. To redress: I ask the NYS Climate Council create a stand-alone working group to establish a state to Nation partnership: 1) Where Indigenous representation is chosen by the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora Nations respectively; 2) To ensure their political status is not supplanted under a racial group categorization, and 3) To radically challenge the NYS Climate Act Scoping Plan in its integrity and motive regarding Indigenous people, which fundamentally affects marginalized communities. Please see the attached. Respectfully, Rev. Anne Dunlap | ||
| Michael,Murray | Committe Members: The target you claim of 0 emissions is not achievable. The premise is based on a concept of socialism. History has taught that socialism is evil, based upon an evil principle. It leads to slavery, loss of all freedoms and no control of governing by the people. The proposed plan not only restricts how people live, but the cost will beggar all but the truly rich. To support this means that those believe evil is what the people of this state need. How can this committee claim to represent the people and provide the best living conditions? No one living under liberty would want that which removes it from the guidelines of life? This country is a constitutional republic. Which means we are to be governed by laws and not a point of view (falsely presented as truth) and causes many people to believe they are the majority, and the laws of freedom should be changed. Evil is always subtle, but its outcome is always the same, and this is totally evil. Michael Murray | ||
| Teresa,Swartz | As I see it you are forcing use of electricity for everything. This is a poor plan. Natural gas is not as bad as your saying it is. Your plan wlll drive more people out of this expensive state. In the winter when there are power failures, those with generators that use propane for back up heat will be punished? Those that are pushing this plan are shortsighted. I hope this will be reconsidered and this change will be at a slower pace. | ||
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project, Divest NY, NR DC | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades. I would like to address Chapter 12 of this Scoping Plan: Buildings. In our state buildings account for 32% of the dangerous GHG emissions. This Plan has set forth several approaches to curb these emissions. We need to retrofit buildings to make them more efficient and provide heat and electricity via renewable energy. These vital steps need to be put in place ASAP. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | To immediately identify workforce development needs and develop a plan to scale up the workforce for decarbonization of buildings: The Jobs Study of the Just Transition Working Group estimates that meeting New York's climate goals will create 140,000 jobs related to buildings by 2030. Yet unless New York begins now to develop this workforce, there will not be enough trained workers to fill these jobs. The Draft Scoping Plan must include a requirement to map out workforce development needs for building efficiency improvements and electrification statewide, and to engage the NYS Education Department, the SUNY/CUNY system, community-based organizations, and partners involved in workforce development, labor and and the private sector to develop and implement a strategy to recruit, train, and skill up the clean energy workfoce needed to decarbonize the building sector. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Commit at least $1 billion annually to support energy efficiency and electrification for disadvantaged communities and low- and moderate-income households. NYSERDA has estimated that at least $1 billion annually is the minimum investment needed to ensure an equitable and affordable clean energy transition. The $250 million in current state and utility spending is woefully inadequate to meet the need. The state should create a revolving loan fund for building decarbonization and the reuse of buildings and building materials, modeled on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Support Households and Businesses in this Transition Through Sustained Public Education 1. As soon as possible, launch a major, sustained statewide public education and information campaign to support climate-friendly choices by consumers for building improvements and equipment. Most people are unaware of the benefits of these improvements to their homes and buildings. 2. Ensure cost parity with fossil systems before 2030 in upfront costs for electrification, with incentives and financing assistance as necessary. 3. Immediately ramp up easily accessible incentive programs to encourage households and residential building owners to weatherize and undertake electrical upgrades in preparation for future electrification. 4. Require an energy audit and basic weatherization and electrical servide upgrades as a condition of home sales. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Include Target Dates for Zero-Emissions Standards When Replacing Fossil Fuel Equipment together with a Program to Affordably Weatherize and Upgrade Buildings I am writing to support the Scoping Plan's recommendations to: 1. By 2030 enact zero-emissions standards for end-of-useful-life replacements of heating and hot water equipment in single-family homes and low-rise residential buildings up to 49 housing units 2. By 2035, extend these zero-emissions standards to large multi-family and commercial buildings, and also include end-of-useful-life replacements for gas appliances (i.e. stoves and dryers) in all buildings. Thank you | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Initiate a managed transition from utility gas to clean heating and cooling in existing buildings to be completed by 2050, with an interim target of 2 million decarbonized buildings by 2030. The Draft Scoping Plan calls for developing a plan for a managed and equitable transition to clean heating and cooling systems that maintain affordable, safe and reliable utility service and protect low- and moderate-income households from an undue burden in the transition away from fossil fuels. I urge the Climate Action Council to include in the Scoping Plan the Gas Transition and Affordability Act (S.8198) to begin this process. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | End Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Expansion The final plan should include the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations to: 1. Align state laws governing utility service with the Climate Act, eliminating the requirement of utilities to supply gas service to anyone who requests it an supporting the transition to equitable, energy-efficient electrification. 2. Immediately end state and utility marketing of fossil gas, and ramp up marketing and incentives for air-source and ground-source heat pumps. 3. Deny new gas infrastructure permits, which would only increase greenhouse gas emissions and crate more stranded assets. Additionally, urge the Climate Action Council to include language directing utilities to end expansion of the gas distribution system into new geographic areas. 4. Efficient electrification is the key pathway to eliminating emissions from buildings. The plan should avoid false solutions such as so-called renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen. RNG contributes to air pollution and can't be produced in sufficient quantities to replace fossil fuels. Hydrogen production is polluting and its distribution would require costly new pipeline infrastructure. The fossil fuel industry is promoting RNG and hydrogen in an effort to prolong use of fossil fuels, but New York should avoid falling into this trap. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Ban Fossil Fuel Heating and Equipment in New Buildings The Draft Scoping Plan's proposed 2024/2027 timeframe for prohibiting fossilfuels in new building construction should be adopted. The timeframe should require that: 1. By 2024, all-electric energy codes are in place for new residential and mixed use (residential/commercial) buildings under five stories; 2. By 2027, all-electric codes for new construction should be extended to all residential and commercial buildings types. The Plan points out that this recommendation would require legislative action now, in the 2022 legislative session, to enable regulatory action in time for a 2024 revised energy code. Thank you. Thank you | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Align All State Agencies' Policies and Procedures with CLCPA The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that all state agencies proactively align their policies and procedures to align with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. If such alignment requires new legislation, the Plan should recommend such legislation. The Public Service Commission is an example of an agency whose actions will greatly determine how successful the implementation of the CLCPA is in achieving its goals, as this is the agency that oversees all utilities in the state. The contraction of fossil gas use will require major supervision by the PSC. Because the PSC oversees the provision of electricity, including billing rates, its actions will affect the affordability of running heat pumps for heating and cooling as well as other appliances. The success of the CLCPA depends on providing affordable electricity to power these heat pumps and other electric appliances. If legislation is needed to ensure that the PSC fulfills its needed role in CLCPA implementation, the Plan should recommend such legislation. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Treat Untried Solutions with Skepticism Hydrogen and so-called renewable gas are likely to have very narrow applicability to the generation of electricity. The cost of building new production and transmission systems to supply power plants would be enormous, and this money would be far better spent on building large-scale renewables. It's important to note that hydrogen cannot be transported through NYS's current network of pipelines, as the gas is too corrosive. Biomass and bioenergy both release carbon dioxide, the very greenhouse gas that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is designed to eliminate. Waste-to-energy threatens local areas with co-pollutants, worsening air quality and local health. The Draft Scoping Plan should concentrate on wind, solar, battery storage, and efficiency as effective strategies for reducing New York State's greenhouse gas emissions. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | Clean Energy Siting The Draft Scoping Plan offers good ideas for building community support for clean energy siting, but these recommendations should be expanded. The transition to renewable energy can provide enormous economic benefits, especially in the dramatic growth of good jobs, and this should be highlighted and promoted to the public The Plan should include additional recommendations for educating the media, especially local outlets throughout the state, as these are a significant source of information to help the public understand the complexities of local issues such as clean energy siting. | |
| Frank,Stalteri | I do not want new NY State homes to be required to have electric furnaces and all electric appliances. I do not want electric furnaces required to replace older natural gas furnaces. I am a supporter of improved environment. This is too far. | ||
| Joshua,Cohen | Partners for Climate Action Hudson Valley | ||
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should recommend that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar energy generation. The Draft Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation, but does not go far enough in supporting small building owners who have invested in solar. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference in whether installing solar is affordable or not. Individual building owners are an important resource here, and New York needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that the full range of environmental burdens experienced by Disadvantaged Communities should be taken into account. The Draft Scoping Plan says that Disadvantaged Communities "should be considered" when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommisioned (p. 156). This language needs to be much stronger. Communities that are disadvantaged often face multiple sources of significant pollution, not only their local power plants. Thank you | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan makes many important recommendations for Electricity. But it is essential that the final plan strengthen the commitment to allowing new new fossil fuel plants. The Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electric generating plants over time. But any serious commitment to facing the climate emergency requires a moratorium on ALL new fossil fuel plants. When plants are closed, plant owners should be held responsible for site remediation. Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, any new permits should specify that the extension of plant use will be temporary. Any new permit should specify that the cost of any such retrofit will be the responsibility of the plant owner, not the ratepayers, should the plant become a stranded asset when it eventually closes. The Plan should also provide a stronger commitment to clean energy job training in every community where a plant does close. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that all state agencies proactively align their policies and procedures to align with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. If such alignment requires new legislation, such legislation should be recommended. The Public Service Commission is an example of an agency whose actions will greatly affect how successful the implementation of the CLCPA is, as this is the agency that oversees all utilities in the state. The contraction of fossil gas will require major supervision by the PSC. The PSC oversees the provision of electricity, including billing rates, which affects the affordability of running heat pumps for heating and cooling, as well as other appliances. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan includes many important recommendations for the buildings sector. But it does not go far enough in protecting disadvantaged New Yorkers, especially renters, during the transition to electrification. The Plan does acknowledge that low and moderate building owners and New Yorkers living in disadvantaged communities may need additional resources to enable them to electrify their homes and small businesses. Integrating energy requirements and resources into affordable housing deals might expand access to low-cost yet efficient electrified housing. Unspecified regulatory and other strategies, with targeted investments, would help. Low and moderate income New Yorkers are particularly vulnerable to energy price spikes that may occur during this transition. Landlords may raise rents, displacing vulnerable renters. Contractors may take use the electrification process as an opportunity for predatory business practices. Therefore, the Plan should include stronger and more specific protection for low and moderate income New Yorkers and those in disadvantaged communities. These should include a Utility Bill of Rights; a safety net of guaranteed affordable renewable energy; and clawback provisions for public subsidies should a landlord use such improvements to raise rents. Enforcement of NYS's current Energy Affordability Policy (energy costs = no more than 6% of household income) must be adequately funded. Thank you. | |
| Connie,Gutowski | D.V. Brown & Associates, Inc. | Gentlemen, Please find attached my submitted testimony on the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. Connie Gutowski a concerned lifelong citizen of New York State, Buffalo, NY | has attachment |
| Tom,Rhoads | citizen of New York State | Please see the attached comments on public education and community-based solutions for plan modification. | has attachment |
| Michael,Powers | |||
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Dear Climate Action Council, I’m Laura Faulk and I live in Saratoga Springs. I’m the Co-chair of The Climate Reality Project, Capital Region, NY Chapter. My professional background is in science and engineering. I have a degree in physics from the University of Texas at Austin and was an engineer and manager in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. I’m gravely concerned about the increasing disruption to our life sustaining climate system. Buildings account for a third of New York’s GHG emissions, with space and water heating being the largest contributors. We must phase out the use of on-site fossil fuels such as heating oil and methane gas and shift to clean electricity as the sole energy source for buildings, while simultaneously pursuing weatherization, energy efficiency, and improved building codes. Appliances last 10-15 years; buildings can last decades. Every new building with on-site fossil-fuel combustion is an avoidable costly mistake that locks in a polluting fuel for generations, or will require an expensive conversion. I strongly support immediate upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines in the Draft Scoping Plan for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. We need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating. Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I also strongly support the building/zoning code to phase out the use of natural gas in building heating systems. | |
| Maura,McNulty | Climate Reality Project | My name is Maura McNulty. I have lived in NY for nearly all my life, and have raised two beautiful daughters here. It is on their behalf that I write to you today. We are facing a tenuous future, and we must act quickly and courageously to avoid the worst consequences. Since transportation accounts for about 28% of New York’s GHG emissions, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, and shift to electricity as the sole energy source for vehicles. Simultaneously expanding public transportation and making it more efficient, reliable, and affordable, and investing in Transit Oriented Development are the key means of decarbonizing the transportation sector. Once electrified, the GHG emissions associated with transportation will decline as more distributed and centralized carbon-free sources of electricity are added to the grid. I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I am particularly alarmed at the complete lack of funding and efforts for building out an EV charging infrastructure in New York to support the rate of vehicle electrification that is required to meet the CLCPA emissions targets and to support other New York State mandates, such as a ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles starting 2035. I believe that as more New Yorkers become better informed about the benefits of a green transition, and as we incentivize shifts to green transportation options, we can effect change on a scale that will preserve our childrens’ future. Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf. | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Annette Hakiel,Danner | This is a message for you all and the governor. I sent a similar message to all RGGI affiliated state governors. I’m writing you today as a concerned citizen of New York State, asking if you would support a state-led regional initiative similar to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for airlines and airports in the Northeast. This initiative would entail a mandate that ratchets up the percent of sustainable aviation fuel blended into all airplane fuels at regional airports. While Europe is experimenting with a mandate, I think regionally, the northeast states, or more broadly east coast states, are in great position to create a buyers alliance that would result in more sustainable aviation and a possible income stream for each state. I exchanged messages on Twitter on this subject with Jigar Shah of the DOE’s LPO (Loan Programs Office). He was supportive of the idea and suggested that all the governors I message email him to indicate their interest at [email protected] He stated he is interested in working with a buyers group composed of such. SABA (sustainable aviation buyers alliance) will have certifications for SAF later this year and currently works with businesses. Thank you, Annette Hakiel | ||
| René,Carver | please refer to my attached document. thank you! | has attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project | Please refer to my attached document. | has attachment |
| Maura,McNulty | Climate Reality Project | My name is Maura McNulty. I live in Albany, NY. I am writing to express my support for Scenario # 3. Despite the fossil fuel lobby’s Orwellian insistence that we cannot thrive without methane gas, the truth is that we cannot survive at all unless we shift to sustainable alternatives. We must decommission natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible - this can be done while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances. No one thinks this is going to be easy. But change is coming: We see evidence of a collapsing climate all around us. The question is whether we do our best to have a planful, orderly transition, or one marked by unreliable infrastructure and social unrest. Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf. | |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | Please refer to my attached document. | has attachment |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Climate Reality Finger Lakes Greater R egion NY Chapter | I have been a NYS resident, voter and tax-payer for 44 years. As indicated by the latest IPCC report, we MUST decrease GHG levels as soon as possible. This includes getting away from "natural" gas use. It is not clean as purported by the industry and leads to a hazardous home environment, especially when airflow is reduced due to tight insulation or weatherization. Interfering with the transition to electrified heat sources is an structure which subsidizes the gas industry, hidden from the everyday consumer. One major impediment to building electrification is the set of archaic laws and regulations that create an uneven playing field between gas and electric space and water heating options. The current public service law not only provides for the gas utilities to pass the cost and the risk of gas infrastructure expansion on to the ratepayers, but in many cases, it also mandates it. For example, the "100-foot rule" the “100 foot rule” (governed by 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e) of the Public Service Commission’s regulations) requires a gas utility to provide an applicant with a minimum length of main and service line extensions at no cost to the applicant. A conservative analysis by the New York Geothermal Energy Organization included in their testimony submitted to the Public Service Commission shows that just this subsidy costs New York's existing gas customers at least $200 million every year by way of additional delivery charges. This is an unconscionable subsidy for fossil gas. I support the elimination of these implicit subsidies, as well as ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Dear Climate Action Council, I’m Laura Faulk and I live in Saratoga Springs. I’m the Co-chair of The Climate Reality Project, Capital Region, NY Chapter. My professional background is in science and engineering. I have a degree in physics from the University of Texas at Austin and was an engineer and manager in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. I’m gravely concerned about the increasing disruption to our life sustaining climate system. The science is crystal clear that we must stop burning fossil fuels and stop using methane gas for all forms of heating in buildings - air, water, and cooking. The current plan calls for methane, so called natural gas, to be used as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This is NOT needed, and was inserted as an excuse for natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure. This provision should be removed from the Draft Scoping Plan. Methane is a powerful green-house gas and leaks throughout the distribution system, at the time of extraction, and at end use locations can only be fully eliminated if we stop using methane as a fuel source. Thank you. | |
| Maura,McNulty | Climate Reality Project | My name is Maura McNulty. I live in Albany, NY and am a member of the Climate Reality Project. The climate crisis is clearly accelerating. We MUST stop subsidizing and incentivizing the expansion of fossil fuels. Buildings account for a third of New York’s GHG emissions, with space and water heating being the largest contributors. It is widely accepted that phasing out the use of on-site fossil fuels such as heating oil and methane gas and shifting to electricity as the sole energy source for buildings, while simultaneously pursuing weatherization, energy efficiency, and improved building codes, is the only feasible path to decarbonizing building operations. Once electrified, the GHG emissions associated with buildings will decline as more distributed and centralized carbon-free sources of electricity are added to the grid. Appliances last for a dozen or so years, but buildings stand for decades. Each new building with on-site fossil-fuel combustion is a giant step in the wrong direction. Fossil-fuel buildings lock in reliance on unpredictable, highly polluting fuel for generations. We must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses - the largest source of GHG emissions in NY - to net zero. I congratulate the Climate Action Council for successfully mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable. For some, the costs of heating a home can be crippling in the winter and the lack of air conditioning in the summer can put them in peril. Electrification of buildings, in combination with weatherization and other efficiency improvements provides a path to affordable living for those who struggle to maintain acceptable living conditions. For others, it provides a path to more predictable living expenses and a cleaner environment. For all of us, it provides a path to a cleaner and better future. Thank you for all your work on our behalf. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | I live in New York City, where buildings are the source of about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing not only to our climate challenge but affecting air quality as well, in a place where asthma is rampant. As a retired New York City high school teacher, I can attest to the many students whose school attendance and therefore performance suffer because of chronic asthma. Making buildings more energy efficient by electrifying heating and cooling systems and appliances will bring meaningful health benefits: reduced respiratory illness, less stress from heat and cold, and the elimination of carbon monoxide. The Draft Scoping Plan takes a crucial and necessary step by recognizing that electrifying buildings is essential if NYS is to meet the goals of the CLCPA. The Scoping Plan also recognizes the need to adopt zero emissions codes for buildings, recommending that other energy efficiency measures be combined with heat pumps (electrification + efficiency) while acknowledging the need for careful planning, and recognizes the need to transition from hydrofluorocarbons. But the Draft Scoping Plan falls short on funding for electrification. The plan calls for electrifying 1-2 million homes by 2030, which will generate 100,000 new clean energy jobs -- and will require an investment in the billions of dollars. Buildings electrification Building electrification is so central to progress on New York State’s climate goals that it must have a sufficient dedicated source of funding. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical plan for NYS. | |
| Maura,McNulty | I’m a member of the Climate Reality Project of the Greater Capital Region. I’m also a mother, with two beautiful daughters, and I have been a teacher for 35 years, which is to say that I have dedicated my adult life to ensuring that future generations live in a sustainable world. Anyone who is speaking in good faith acknowledges that humanity is already experiencing the early stages of climate collapse, and that we are dooming our own children unless we act quickly, with dedication and courage. Yet the fossil-fuel industry and related interests are systematically campaigning to mislead citizens and undermine every effort to salvage the environment. I’m not going to belabor these points, because they are self-evident. But I will say that we need to methodically counter the disinformation that is being so efficiently distributed by corporate entities that are far larger and better funded than we ordinary citizens are. For that reason, I hope that the Council funds a statewide education campaign so that New Yorkers can learn about the benefits of climate friendly heating, cooling, cooking and hot water systems. We will inevitably experience dislocation as the climate deteriorates and we act to mitigate those effects, but the better educated people are, the more open we’ll be to adapting, and the more quickly we’ll be able to experience the benefits of a green economy. To move toward a more sustainable economy, we must phase out the use of oil and methane gas in our homes and buildings, which account for a third of New York’s GHG emissions. By shifting to electricity, improving building codes, and weatherizing more efficiently, we can decarbonize buildings. The renewables market is evolving rapidly. We have the technology. We need leaders to envision that future, and we need a citizenry that is aware of the stakes and informed about constructive action. In other words, what we need is the political will. | ||
| Lynne A. ,Grifo | A corrected version of a previous submission is attached. | has attachment | |
| Lynne A. ,Grifo | |||
| Kevin,Spillane | Onondaga County Research Recovery Agency | See attached | has attachment |
| Tatiana,Kaletsch | I strongly am in favor of the proposed legislation to reduce carbon emissions in New York State and will support the measures to achieve goals. | ||
| Arianna,Gutierrez | Hello, my name is Arianna Gutierrez, i am a working mom, a wife, a business professional, and a member of the Sierra club and the climate reality project. I am writing because I worry about the impact of delaying climate action will have on my family. When my daughter is my age, will she be enjoying her own family or will she be constantly on the move – only to find there is no where to go? When she is my parents age, will she be able to retire securely? To give our children the best chance, and to avoid the worst of climate change, we need to take real action now! New York, we have the opportunity to be leaders, to transform our city, minimize our contribution to climate change, and to show that yes, it is possible! more importantly, we can also address environmental justice issues by cleaning up the air we breathe inside our buildings and outside in all new York neighborhoods, while creating 189,000+ good paying jobs in the process. Like many, New Yorkers I support climate action and the CLCPA, with no compromises.” We want to see a full and complete transition to a clean economy by 2050, with a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040 and a clear, detailed roadmap toward a fully electrified transportation sector. “The scoping plan must also be stronger on gas.” We need a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, clear deadlines for phasing out dirty energy and procuring renewables, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction, and a massive investment in getting existing homes off fossil fuels. We cannot solve this problem and meet our mandate without stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, from pipelines to power plants. New Yorkers need Scenario 3 of the draft plan: Accelerated Electrification + limited combustion of alternative fuels. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Thomas,O'Connor | Capital Region Chamber | Please see the attached letter for our public comments. | has attachment |
| Mary-Beth,Wagner | Climate Smart Community Task Force Glens Falls | Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) recommendations must be nuanced — EPR programs should be managed by the state, not controlled by corporations (“producer responsibility organizations”). The track record of EPR in British Columbia shows that corporate control doesn’t lead to the intended outcomes. EPR should concentrate on the most problematic materials and products, excluding traditional recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastics, and metals). EPR should not allow incineration and “chemical recycling” to be considered recycling. | |
| Mary-Beth,Wagner | Climate Smart Community Task Force Glens Falls | Trash incineration is not compatible with climate action! The state’s 10 aging incinerators must be closed now to protect the climate. Nor do we want pyrolysis or gassification used to handle sewage slug or other trash. Burial is not ideal, but still preferable to any type of incineration. | |
| David,Barnard | individual concerned physist. Am a m ember of inter faith groups and CCA- CDCE in Albany | Instead of the advocacy of "all electric" and the Scoping Plan. As a physicist I am looking at things that would really work rather than Requiring restrictions like "all electric building" codes right now. !. Multiply the electric storage by 100( over that suggested in the Scoping Plan). 5 times the power available and 20 times the amount of time its available, ie, Kwhrs. As we add solar we need 4 times since sun shines brightly 1/5 of the day. With wind, days of low output needs storage. 2. Quickly ( in 5 to 10 years) replace all older, less efficient but needed gas fired power plants with modern high efficiency( 60%) gas turbines. This temporary "fix" would save a lot of GHG in the near future. 3. Subsidize and incentivize individual homeowners and businesses to have modern "time of use" electric metering with adjustable rates to reflect lad zone demand. Make it profitable for the community to balance the load with base line generating capacity 3a. Publish hourly rates and forecast rates so customers can plan for best time of use. 4. Encourage and incentivize direct solar space and water heating. 5. Develop networks of community scale piping of geothermal water to provide Ground source capability to all customers. Include solar heat and storage. This could be an enhancement to the hydrant water system (which is seldom used). it could provide both cool water closed loops and warm water loops to serve summer and winter needs while preserving fire fighting capability. 6. Delay "all electric" requirement until more than 75% of power is GHG free. Preserve the option to use gas to back up electric air source heat pumps in cold winter. 7. In next few years replace all needed gas plants with High efficiency gas turbines (60%). place special priority on co-generation when possible. | |
| Robert,Kuehnel | Citizens' Climate Lobby | The plan will benefit New York State and the world by incorporating a price on the burning of carbon fuels and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. | |
| Bob,Welte | 5/12/2022 How about NYC area keeping and processing their own garbage downstate instead of shipping it 150 to 200 miles upstate to poor disadvantaged communities (where is the garbage justice)? This doesn’t sound equitable or environmentally progressive to me. I don’t know the exact number but I would estimate over 100 overweight permitted tractor trailer loads a day pass through our town on rt 17. How about put your mighty windmills downstate near where the largest power consumption is? Oops not in their backyard, lets foist them on poor rural upstate communities (that’s the states version of equity). Come up and see all the forest destroyed by the sites and the roads that were built to get to them. We are moving to electric cars, heat pumps for our heating and air conditioning with total conversion by 2050? Oh and the shutdown of all fossil fuel generation. Is nuclear generation vastly increasing? Where is this massive amount of electricity going to be reliably generated? Wind and solar are not good choices since they are not dense sources and are very intermittent. Are you banking on phenomenal improvements in battery technology? Where is the magic? What is the environmental impact of the huge increase in battery manufacturing and decommissioning, how about solar cell/wind mill production and decommissioning? How big are the mines to produce the materials for this utopian adventure, how about the landfills when they are end of life, how many poor countries will be exploited so our politicians can virtue signal their enviro-equity wokeness? More money for schools… that is a good one, we already have the highest public-school costs of any state in the nation. $28K/yr/pupil in my rural town (Windsor), and now they need more to save the environment? Only 30% of eighth graders are performing at eighth grade level in mathematics, we ignore that and focus on BS. This woke religion looks to be the economic ruin of NY State. | ||
| Brendon,Barker | The citizens of Erie County do not want wind turbines installed in Lake Erie. This will destroy not only the beautiful aesthetics of the lake, but also recreation around those areas. The area has worked hard to clean up the lake and we don’t need another potential environmental hazard needlessly installed. They are an eye sore, will ruin what WNY has been working to build in tourism, and be of no benefit to our area. | ||
| harriet,shugarman | ClimateMama/Climate Reality | My name is Harriet Shugarman. I addressed the CAC during the public comment period at the virtual hearing held, May 11, 2022. By way of introduction I am the award-winning author of the New Society Publishers book, How to Talk to Your Kids About Climate Change, Turning Angst into Action. I am addressing you today in my role as the Executive Director of ClimateMama. I am also a Professor of Climate Change & Society and World Sustainability at Ramapo College of New Jersey, where many of my students are from New York State. I am a member of the New York Climate and Resiliency Education Task Force, and I was founding chair of the Climate Reality NYC chapter. My comments are focused on the importance of comprehensive climate education, in K-12 education in NYS. I regularly work with parents, students, and educators from across the state who are concerned and seeking information and support on furthering their climate education and ways to turn this into action. While there is mention of climate education specifically in chapters 6, 7, 12, 16, 21 and 22, of the Draft Scoping Plan there is no clear, detailed plan that spells out the state’s commitment to comprehensive, globally relevant, interdisciplinary, justice-centered climate education, with workforce development programs for both New York State’s 2.6 million K-12 public school students and our teachers. This is not only a missed opportunity but, as I see it, a critical and foundational component for any successful climate policy program to be implemented in New York. We will not accomplish our ambitious plans without a firm commitment to climate education, K-12. To accomplish this, dedicated funding for teacher support, training, and development is required as well. My full comments and supporting resources and studies is attached. | |
| Michael,Madden | Because buildings are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in New York, I'm writing to express my strongest possible support for the Renewable Heat Now bills which I hope will become law THIS YEAR. | ||
| Dan,Gottesman | Ergovation | Overall the plan and report seems to be a needed excellent combination of technical strategies. HOWEVER, we need much more focus on communication and education and building awareness across all sectors of the population if people will need to make choices for the plan to succeed. The few paragraphs of section 22.2 & 22.3 are barely an introduction to what will need to be a plan as comprehensive as the entire rest of the document. I wish this were simple. | |
| Mary,Krieger | Jewish Climate Action Network and It’ s Easy Being Green | The time is past for incremental action on carbon dioxide reduction. As a teacher on Long Island during Hurricane Sandy, I saw firsthand the way climate change increases the severity of weather events. A medically-fragile student whose home was flooded was unable to be cared for by his family. Fortunately, a BOCES classroom aide took him into her home and cared for him and his life was spared. Severe weather events affect so many people on Long Island and in Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx and Manhattan. When the waters rise, people with the fewest resources have nowhere to go when they are trapped on upper floors of affordable housing high rises or in basement apartments. For several years I have worked with the Jewish Climate Action Network-NY and a neighborhood climate group to increase individual and collective around climate issues and to pass local and state legislation. I have seen how fossil fuel interests and other special interests propose fake solutions like biomass and unproven solutions like “green” hydrogen. These groups try to do an end run around Local Law 97 and the CLCP by lobbying to cut enforcement personnel, postpone deadlines and and weaken penalties. Don’t let them destroy the CLCP. The Draft Scoping Plan must hold ALL sectors to account with specific, sector-by-sector mandates for the reduction of emissions which are legally enforceable so they can’t be ignored. Moreover, a funding mechanism must be established to begin the state’s transition to an equitable, fossil-free economy. To that end, I ask you to establish an equitable, economy-wide pollution fee. | |
| Paul,Mendelsohn | Hello, I'm Paul Mendelsohn, a retired teacher from Cherry Valley. In the testimony, a speaker warned of the scarcity of Rare earth elements: Yet, an overwhelming number of phones and devices end up in landfills. A more robust recycling program with responsibility on consumers and manufacturers could address much of this problem. Markets for woody biomass, primarily in Europe to replacement coal, are driving deforestation and local pollution in the Southern US. Carbon recycling from the atmosphere by regrowing trees takes decades while wood-burning for energy is adding copious emissions today. Side by side studies of biomass plants and gas plants, drawing on actual air permit data, find dramatically higher rates of local pollution from biomass. Biogas reclamation sounds promising... unless you consider that the infrastructure for methane, a far greater threat to the environment in the short term than CO2, is notoriously leaky. This issue must be addressed before biogas can be viable. Waste incineration sounds promising ... until you consider that compared to burning coal. Local pollutant and GHG emissions are generally higher than coal. For one or more pollutants, seven of New York State’s waste incineration facilities are counted among the 12 most polluting such facilities across the United States. New York’s waste incineration facilities perform significantly worse on cancer-causing hazardous air pollutants compared to other power plants in the state, often in or near low-income communities. While the cost of solar generation drops almost weekly, placement can be an issue. We might use medians and cloverleaf ramps on highways, and rooftops of municipal and commercial buildings. New York could fully leverage tools like community workforce agreements and project labor agreements to increase renewable energy statewide. And this would create permanent jobs in construction, as would installing more heat pumps . Thank you | ||
| John,Bruce | We have a vulnerable power grid that will become overloaded and less reliable under the Climate Act.We had three power outages this year. The last one caused by a winter storm knocked out power to 100,000 customers for four days. A small gasoline powered generator,propane range and a small propane heater kept my family warm and fed,the pipes in my home from freezing and food from spoiling. If the need arose I could drive to a area that had power to buy food and medicine with my gasoline powered car. I can not support the Climate Act that would eliminate or raise the price of fossil fuels which would cause my family a hardship and freeze damage to my home during a power outage. This is a bad act. | ||
| Brian ,Gwarek | It seems that New York State's Climate Draft Scoping Plan doesn't account for snowstorm related power outages, or the impact on New Yorkers' electric bills. If households are converted to all electric furnaces, stoves, ECT. how will people cook, or heat their homes during a power outage, and how does this new dependency on electricity effect everyone's electric bill? | ||
| Amanda,Mazzoni | I work at the CNY Regional Planning and Development Board, primarily working with municipal governments to implement clean energy projects that will help NY reach the goals of the CLCPA. I am also a mother to a 2-year-old and am very aware of the dangers that climate change poses for his future. I strongly support the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan, specifically scenario 3, both professionally and personally. The first point I’d like to make is that the CLCPA is law, so the Scoping Plan must ensure that the mandates put forth by the Climate Action Council are legally enforceable and include timelines for the reduction of emissions by sector. In order to meet the requirements of the CLCPA, we need to focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind and battery storage. We’ll need to see a rapid, large-scale transition away from fossil fuels, as well as a ban on any new or repowered gas plants. We must phase out fossil fuels and combustion appliances and technologies, support electric construction, and particularly all-electric new construction by 2024. A carbon fee is also necessary. Through all of these efforts, environmental justice must come first! This means prioritizing the health and welfare of low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. In order to meet the goals of the CLCPA and begin to tackle the climate crisis, we need a complete paradigm shift, and quickly. We don't have time to waste on false solutions like "renewable" natural gas or "letting the market decide". We need significant changes to heating and cooling buildings, what powers our electric grid, our transportation options, and this transition needs to benefit disadvantaged communities, people’s health, and our workforce more than companies and corporations. I looking forward to doing my part, both personally and professionally, in implementing these necessary changes. | ||
| Amber,Ruther | Alliance for a Green Economy and Syra cuse Democratic Socialists of America | We need a real just transition for the fossil fuel industry workers. If you’re a fossil fuel industry or utility worker reading this, please reach out by filling out the form at bit.ly/justtransitionroundtable. I want you to have a seat at the table and provide feedback on some exciting bills that would meet New York’s climate mandates in ways that help both workers and the environment! Green jobs must be union jobs. That’s why I’m fighting for the Build Public Renewables Act (A1466B/S6453A), which would enable the New York Power Authority to build new renewable projects with prevailing wage, project labor agreements, and neutrality to unionization. Unlike private developers, NYPA can put people over profits. Learn more at publicpowerny.org We also need a real plan to phase out the gas system while ensuring that gas workers have the safety net and training options they need. We must reject false solutions like hydrogen and “renewable” natural gas that we know will never be feasible or affordable for heating at any large scale. We need real solutions like heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems. Instead of installing pipes that would carry gas or hydrogen, which harm our health and our wallets, gas utility workers could install pipes that would carry heated and cooled water that deliver heat to entire neighborhoods. They could keep their jobs, keep their pensions and benefits, and even be safer at work if they were legally enabled to build geothermal district heating systems. This isn’t just a “pipe dream” - countries like Sweden meet 50% of their heating needs with district heating systems, and they’re already being built in Ithaca, Rochester, NYC, Troy, and more. We need the Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act (S8198/A9329) to create a real, just, and affordable plan to phase out the gas system and build Renewable Heat Now! Learn more at renewableheatnow.org | |
| Barbara,Spink | My comments are attached. | has attachment | |
| Amaya ,Daniel | When looking over the Draft Scoping Plan, I decided to key in on Chapter 11: Transportation. I seen that future plans included shifting to more public transportation being used, along with enhanced bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure etc. Transportation contributes greatly to ghg emissions especially depending one one's place of residence. New York specifically is fortunate enough to have easily accessible public transportation that can be useful. However, as this goal is set for 2030, which isn't quite far from now, it leads me to wonder are these goals reasonable and likely to transpire by then. Additionally, although I know that these plans are specific helping those who reside iNew York City, are these goals capable of occurring in states like Florida where I recently relocated to, where driving is the main source of transportation. | ||
| bernice,gordon | 350 BROOKLYN | My name is Bernice Gordon and I have lived in Boerum Hill Brooklyn for the past 54 years. Prior to 2012 and starting with Hurricane Sandy I and others in my neighborhood, especially my neighbors in the Gowanus Public Housing Projects, have and continue to be negatively impacted by the extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change. My house has gotten flooded with every hurricane since Sandy requiring bailing out water as if one is on a sinking ship. As a senior citizen I'm not sure I can endure another flood and the mold and damage it causes despite all my attempts to prevent it from happening again. This exposure to mold compounds the asthma and bronchial conditions many of us suffer from due to the increasing pollution caused by climate change which scientists project will definitely increase in the years ahead. We need the CLCPA to address climate change in order to protect the existing and future health of all New Yorkers, especially those in marginalized communities impacted the most by the escalating climate crisis. | |
| Michael,Marsh | Although fossil fuels need to be transitioned away from, this plan, to drag all kicking and screaming into what is currently only a pipe dream, will only hurt the middle and lower classes. Natural gas provides a cleaner energy source that should not be immediately discarded; doing so will hurt all as they will have to buy new furnaces, water heaters, appliances, etc. Nuclear power, the only real clean power, should not be dismissed but be expanded. Much of the technology, such as small power equipment, has not developed to be effectively used. A battery powered lawnmower would not be able to mow my lawn without being charged at least twice. Even so, fossil fuels are required to make batteries, and take a look at the lithium and other element mines if you are so concerned with environmental degradation. NYS emissions only account for 0.4% of all global carbon emissions, while China and India will not do anything to curb greenhouse gases. Without a coordinated global effort, this plan won't even make a dent into stopping climate change. Only the working classes will be hurt economically. This plan should be scrapped in favor of a more gradual transition to alternate energy sources. | ||
| Ana,Fisyak | Equinor | ||
| Katherine,Collett | Indivisible Mohawk Valley Climate Cri sis Working Group | I applaud the goals and much of the implementation in the Draft Scoping Plan. I have a vision of a just world, or at least a just state, without fossil fuel or unrecyclable single-use plastic or damaging pollution, for my grandchildren to grow up in. To get there, we need a rapid, large-scale, just transition away from fossil fuels, which must include electrification of both buildings and transportation. Just today the installation of an air source heat pump to warm and cool our house was completed and turned on, drawing on our solar panels for its electricity -- these technologies should be available for all, not just those privileged enough to be able to afford it. Prioritize environmental justice, public health, and a just transition; focus on renewable zero-emission technologies like solar and wind; and fund and enforce the provisions of the CLCPA! | |
| Lucy,Proshansky | Thank you CAC for building a plan that begins to address the global catastrophe that is climate change. The economy wide strategies suggested are a good first step to preventing this calamity, however they do not go far enough. As countless scientists and economists have suggested, a revenue neutral price on carbon would be the single most effective solution to climate change. It would send a signal to the market that fossil fuels and other contributors to the climate crisis would be no longer economically viable or profitable and so provide the much needed motivation to switch to renewables. The price on carbon should start low and rise every year, giving business a clear timeframe to adapt. Carbon pricing is non-regulatory and more price-certain which is better for business and consumers. An economy wide shift brought on by a carbon fee and dividend, along with the suggestions of the CAC would do the most to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. Please act with haste and determination. The world needs it. | ||
| Sandy,Earl | How in the living hell,can you do these things to Americans. Prices sky high and now you want more,,you greedy, ignorant,non American thinking ,self centered,arrogant elitist! You people have no clue how to treat people! When you take everything away do you think you could live off grid? Good god you took police away then cried wolf when you needed protection,you all make me sick ! | ||
| Anne,Carney | Hi. My name is Anne Carney, and I live in Harlem. I’m profoundly grateful that lot of great people worked so hard to pass this amazing piece of legislation – the CLCPA. But this bill is meaningless if it’s not funded and if it’s not given teeth with which to enforce it. It’s vital that its implementation matches the urgency and magnitude of the moment AND that it actually benefits the people it was intended to benefit. So, environmental justice has to come first. Low-income communities and communities of color have been bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. I live in one of those communities. My grandkids do as well. The Plan should contain strong public health guidelines, robust labor standards, prevailing wages, funding for workforce development and it needs to ensure that green jobs are UNION jobs. We need precise, scheduled targets for replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources, timelines for emissions reductions by sector, AND a guarantee that these targets will be met using proven renewable technologies like solar and wind – not false solutions like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, waste incineration and others. There’s no point using dirty energy to create clean energy, nor in unnecessarily delaying the transition to renewable zero-emission technologies. The Final Scoping Plan must also assure that the mandates from the Climate Action Council are legally enforceable. Again, none of these provisions will mean anything if they can’t be enforced and if there aren’t significant consequences -- not just slaps on the wrist -- when climate laws are broken. Finally, the Climate Action Council has put forth 3 scenarios. I join NY Renews in advocating for SCENARIO THREE: low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion, and the simultaneous acceleration of electrification of both buildings and transportation. Thank you. (I testified at the online hearing on May 7 but was likely among those not recorded.) | ||
| Ryan,Madden | I am an ally to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy who governs their Territories and citizens according to the Great Law of Peace. Th e Haudenosaunee Confederacy are sovereign Nations with political, cultural, and religious agency over their ancestral homelands that is New York State. The NYS Climate Council have excluded them from the most pivotal legislation on climate change ever. This is a violation of their treaty rights and human rights. To redress, please see the attached comments. | has attachment | |
| vanessa,mccormick | Town of Java | This plan is minute attempt to fix a larger than NY problem. The amount of damage done by home heating sources in NY and your proposed correction will do nothing to offset the damage done in the rest of USA nor will it cure the rest of the world. Other countries are far worse in their damage and the burden this will put on a unprepared infastructure will destroy this state!! Shame on your for grandstanding to ideals with out ideas!! | |
| Guy,Van Benschoten | Regarding the section on closing electric generating plants: Allowing decommissioned generating plants to become Bitcoin Mining facilities is counter intuitive. Not only are the heavy electric demand users, but also using water, as in the Dresden operation on Seneca Lake also has harmful effects on aquatic life, and add to carbon footprint I was flummoxed by the Supreme Court judge ruling that the Dresden operation can continue without a proper DEC review. There’s also some talk about turning the defunct Milliken Station power plant on Cayuga Lake into a bitcoin mining facility. This should not happen. | ||
| Andrew,Weissfeld | Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Actio n | Hi, my name is Andrew Weissfeld. I am a resident of the Upper West Side in Manhattan. I’m here to testify because climate change keeps me up at night. The environment is changing so quickly. Storms are getting stronger and heat waves hotter. I want to try and prevent and prepare for these realities as much as possible so many more generations can continue to live on our one and only planet. We have to do our part in New York. That’s why the CLCPA must set clear year-by-year targets for replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources built for and by our communities. We need a guarantee that these targets will be met using proven renewable energy technologies– not false solutions. New York must phase out fossil fuels and combustion appliances and technologies, support electric construction, and particularly all-electric new construction by 2024 and make residential homes safer for all. With targeted investment in disadvantaged communities for affordable housing, we can ensure that nearly half the residents in our state are less vulnerable to extractive financial practices and unsafe housing conditions. The current draft scoping plan does not adequately front-load investment and resources for disadvantaged communities, and it fails to put protections for consumers and communities on rate increases, predatory business practices, mistreatment by landlords, and gentrification. New York needs stronger regulations on investor-owned utilities and subsidies to private landlords in order to mitigate rent increases and evictions. New York must also establish a dedicated funding mechanism—by legislation if necessary—to ensure reductions of both greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions and to begin the state's large-scale transition to an equitable renewable energy economy. An equitable economy-wide pollution fee is likely the best approach to generate the necessary funds in a just manner. Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |
| Sara,Gronim | I want to praise the Draft Scoping Plan for fully recognizing that electrifying buildings is essential if NYS is to meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The plan highlights the centrality of high-efficiency heat pumps to electrifying buildings, pointing out that ground and air source pumps are “a viable, cost-effective approach to decarbonizing operations for nearly all buildings in New York.” The plan also points out the need to replace end-of-life water heaters, dryers, and stoves with electric appliances as part of the process of electrifying buildings. Buildings will also need to be made more efficient. The prominence of heat pumps and electric appliances in this report is a good first step in expanding public understanding of how we must address the climate crisis. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends changes to building codes that would mandate the shift to electrified buildings. The plan recommends new building codes that incorporate advanced standards for highly efficient, all-electric new construction, along with energy storage and/or onsite renewable generation that enhances building resilience. The Plan recommends regulations that prohibit the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at the end of useful life, and require the installation of energy-efficient, zero-emission equipment for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and appliances. The plan recommends the adoption of regulations that would require existing buildings to improve their energy efficiency. All state energy codes must be aligned with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Plan specifies near-term dates for many of these changes, which is a recognition of the urgency of these recommendations. I urge the Climate Action Council to fully support these recommendations in the final Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | I urge the Climate Action Council to address the immense electricity use of Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrency Mining. Regardless of the mining power source - natural gas or renewable energy - PoW mining stands in the way of our climate goals. If a legitimate need for blockchain technology exists, less energy-intense methods are available. New York State must lead the way and not cower to crypto-bullies. Thank you for your work! | ||
| Peter,Van Etten | PJ Hyde and Son,Inc | Scooping plan should address consumer choice in a free market. Energy will only be available through municipalities. Scooping plan should address long term environmental and economic impact of production and disposal of materials needed such as batteries, solar panels and electric lines. Job creation is a great talking point but what is the exact education and training plan for the work force? Scooping plan should address in detail infrastructure and build out plan. The true cost and the impact on the tax base. Are local municipalities aware and prepared. Benefit-Cost Assessment seems to have a vague time line to the front loaded cost versus long term benefit. Scooping plan should address local government/municipalities understanding and buy in to the CLCPA | |
| timothy,burpoe | molpus woodlands group | ||
| Sarah,Howard | Please select | Please see the attached document Sincerely, Sarah Howard | has attachment |
| Dana,Bronfman | I order delivery from a restaurant all the time and I have many food allergies so don’t trust most places except this one. There is just one I order from regularly. Even though I say in the comments every time, please do not give me napkins and plastic utensils (which are so 100% not necessary for delivery– everyone is eating at home!), they do it any way! This is because the recent law that would have made the default, where you had to request to have them rather than the other way around, did not pass. Regulation is the only way to enforce people “doing the right thing.” Why make it so much harder for hard working New Yorkers, from those ordering to those making packing and delivering the food, to do the right thing? It needs to be regulated. Plastic recycling is a total lie and it is heartbreaking that this is pure waste. I know it is directly related to my future and why I have decided not to have future. We need local and state-wide legislation requiring you to check if you want utensils and napkins. | ||
| Zach,Lembke | Hello. My name is Zach Lembke, and I am a resident of Brooklyn. Pollution caused by exposure to waste incineration has impacted the health of my family and friends in debilitating ways. The CLCPA must enact clear targets to replace fossil fuels with actual renewable sources, not false solutions, like waste incineration. When I lived in Michigan, I lived south of a waste incineration plant in Detroit. At the time, this plant was the largest waste incinerator in North America. In my neighborhood, many of my friends and their children struggled with asthma and other respiratory issues. My friend's daughter Kennedy developed lifelong, debilitating respiratory health problems while growing up in this neighborhood. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services called Detroit the “epicenter of asthma.” A Detroiter is three times more likely than other Michigan residents to be hospitalized for asthma, with children living near the incinerator five times more likely. In 2018, New York City shipped 12 million tons of its own municipal waste to landfills and incinerators in other places, often in or near low-income communities. Burning waste is an acutely unhealthy, racially inequitable, false solution to waste management problems that require much bolder solutions - such as waste reduction and recycling. The CLCPA promised to address climate change while correcting its immediate and long-term effects on the lives of New Yorkers like me. That’s why the CLCPA must set clear year-by-year targets for replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources built for and by our communities. We need a guarantee that these targets will be met using proven renewable energy technologies– not false solutions, like waste incineration. Kennedy deserved to grow up in a community where the air was safe to breathe. W all deserve to grow up in a community where they are safe and protected. We need the CLCPA to be enforced so that New Yorkers and their children can have a safe, bright future. | ||
| ryan,rosenberg | My name is Ryan, and I'm a resident of the Upper West Side. I grew up in Westchester with my three siblings. When superstorm Sandy hit and our house lost power, we were lucky enough to relocate to a hotel for several weeks. I know this was not an imaginable scenario for folks in low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. The impacts of unjust climate impact have become increasingly clear to me. My good friend who grew up in a dense and polluted area in Brooklyn still suffers from asthma. His experience of the pandemic has been closely linked to his socioeconomic experience of a deteriorating climate. The CLCPA must prioritize the health and welfare of low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. The plan must put environmental justice initiatives into law--there should be consequences. | ||
| Michael,Theobald | The draft Scoping plan represents the future of New York state's agriculture and forestry sectors. However, what people tend to forget is that it is merely a draft, and they have the power to voice their opinions on this very comment form. I believe the draft scoping plan outlines very achievable goals for the near future to increase carbon sequestration in New York state and reduce our carbon footprint. Although where the words and data fall short is regarding education and outreach. Without getting people engaged and educated on the subject, the draft scoping plan is fruitless: no matter how much science you have behind it to back it up. To put it bluntly, it's difficult to enforce legislation when nobody knows about the legislation being enacted in the first place. I spent an entire semester at SUNY Morrisville digesting only a handful of the 341 pages of the draft scoping plan in great depth and detail. Admittedly, Without the knowledge I've gained in my previous college semesters there is no way I would've been able to comprehend the bulk of the jargon and data presented in the document. Moreover, one must consider how incredibly busy a farmer must be. To put that in perspective, very few farmers have a college semester’s worth of time to sit down to digest the draft scoping plan as I had. One may argue that the overview of the draft scoping plan (a mere 18 pages long) is a solution to the time constraints at hand. Albeit significantly shorter and mostly graphically displayed, Prior to my education I could see how one could struggle to interpret the data without someone helping teach the meaning behind the numbers. | ||
| Jeffrey,Newsome | I am STRONGLY in support of this climate change legislation! Thank you for passing this bill and prioritzing the fight on climate change! I do have a few technical questions on the legislation, please refer below. 1 How can I best get involved as a private citizen with technical knowledge on residential energy conservation and efficiency? 2 For residential buildings relying on water or steam based heating, what is the plan to make them less carbon intensive? Air source heat pumps generally work with ductwork distribution systems not water based. 3 What is the plan for recycling used car batteries? Thank you again for setting such ambitious plans to preserve a livable world. Jeff Newsome, private citizen. | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | [See attachment] My oral commentary in Binghamton, April 12, 2022 | has attachment | |
| Gerri,Wiley | [See attachment] | has attachment | |
| Daniel,Jones | The plan proposals are nothing short of horrific. Someone would have to be ignorant in almost every facet of everyday life, to sincerely believe this plan is viable. At the very least, the enormity of undue financial burden dropped upon the shoulders of New York State citizens in the form of mandates (non-compliance of which is punishable) is tantamount to extortion. I cannot and will not support any legislation, nor any individuals for public office, who (by word or deed) promote this fiscal insanity under the guise of "social responsibility". Everyone wants a cleaner environment and more sustainable energy, but our technology has not yet achieved levels necessary to meet the requirements fantasized in the timeline. Electrical infrastructure statewide is nowhere near able to handle the capacity of such an increased demand. Rural areas would be disproportionately impacted. Lack of public transportation, Northeast weather conditions, and the needs of agricultural operations, are just some of the factors that were obviously ignored by the (perhaps) well-meaning - yet abhorrently uninformed (presumably urbanite) architects of this plan. And while I applaud the optimism of such lofty goals, I loathe the presumption of such blatantly overreaching authority necessary to force these proposals. These (demonstrably) unconstitutional and economically suicidal proposals should not be passed any further. The only way that real, meaningful change will take place is not through coercion - but through positive incentives and technological advancements. Understanding the needs of every citizen, and logical appreciation of real-world constraints and limitations, has to be the foundation upon which we build a stronger and more secure energy future. | ||
| Alexander,Heil | CBC | Please find attached the Citizens Budget Commission's comments on the draft scoping plan. Thank you. Best, Alex Heil VP Research CBC | has attachment |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should have even more skepticism about untried solutions than it does. Hydrogen and Renewable Natural Gas are likely to have very narrow applicability to electricity generation. The cost of building production and transmission systems to supply power plants would be enormous, and this is money better spent on building large-scale renewables. Note that hydrogen cannot be transported through the current network of pipelines in much of NYS as it is too corrosive. Biomass and Bioenergy both release carbon dioxide, the very greenhouse gas the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is designed to eliminate. Waste-to-Energy threatens local areas with co-pollutants, worsening air quality and local health. The Draft Scoping Plan should concentrate on wind, solar, battery storage, and efficiency as solutions to New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions. | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan offers good ideas for building community acceptance of clean energy siting, but could be expanded. The advantages that the transition to renewable energy economy offers to the economy, particularly in the dramatic growth in good jobs should get more emphasis. We also recommend that the Plan add attention to educating the press, especially local outlets throughout the state, as these are a significant source of information about local issues like clean energy siting. | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should develop strategies for putting solar on warehouses. The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding warehouses to this recommendation. There are acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses in Brooklyn and elsewhere in the state. What engineering adaptations could be made so they can add solar without threatening the integrity of their roofs? | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that the burdens placed on Disadvantaged Communities by existing fossil fuel plants are central to all planning. The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities “should be considered.” (p. 156) The language should be stronger. Communities that are disadvantaged often have multiple sources of significant pollution, not just their local power plant. | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan should recommend that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. | |
| Elizabeth,Henderson | Peacework CSA | ||
| Eva ,Welchman | The Draft Scoping Plan supports fully phasing out SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) and replacing it with a zero emissions alternative. While the Plan recognizes that utilities in New York State have worked to reduce the leakage of SF6, a substance used as an insulator in electrical systems, SF6 is so potent a greenhouse gas (17,000 times more potent than CO2 over a 20 year span) that eliminating it altogether has real urgency. | ||
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan supports fully phasing out SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) and replacing it with a zero emissions alternative. While the Plan recognizes that utilities in New York State have worked to reduce the leakage of SF6, a substance used as an insulator in electrical systems, SF6 is so potent a greenhouse gas (17,000 times more potent than CO2 over a 20 year span) that eliminating it altogether has real urgency. | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan advocates for the promotion of Community Choice Aggregation. With CCA entire communities enter into contracts with an electricity provider, with the provision that individual consumers within a community can opt out of participation. The Plan points out that NYS communities who have set up CCAs to date have overwhelmingly chosen renewables as their source, thus supporting the expansion of renewable generation, and have generally paid less for their electricity than they otherwise would have. The Plan notes the particular importance to low income households of participation in a CCA. | |
| Eva,Welchman | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the central role of energy storage. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends major investments in energy storage. The Plan also emphasizes the sheer volume of storage NYS will need by 2040 when the grid will be 100% carbon-free. Its identification of a potential shortfall of 15-25 gigawatts of storage capacity by that date highlights the urgency with which concrete plans for installing storage state-wide must be instituted. | |
| Claire,Cook | Atlassian | New York City has always been a place that drives innovation, creativity and community. It's a city that children around the world dream of moving to so that they can "make it." Unfortunately, our city is falling apart - from our subways to flooding to unbearable heat. We have the opportunity to turn our city around and make it a leader in climate innovation. Investing in sustainability also supports issues that New York voters care about - like education, access to healthcare and food, women's health, immigration, and mental health. | |
| Angela,Wollschlager | Fireplace Fashions | As a resident, employee in the heating industry, and as a social worker - I feel as though this plan to go to all electric in NYS is a decision that will lead to catastrophic results in NYS. Our current infrastructure is not equipped to handle this change over. In our colder climate - gas heat is more efficient, effective, and affordable. Creating a system where electric is the only option will cost the residents of NY an exorbitant amount of money, that many cannot afford. I feel as though residents, restaurants, and other businesses will leave by the thousands. I also feel as though this will present a strain on out already high tax rates. You will effectively be putting hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers out of business, and out of jobs. Just in the hearth industry alone, there are 100's of small business stores in the area that would need to close. I will be one of the residents that will leave if this act gets through. | |
| Merissa,Hayes | The Fireplace Company | I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers.Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. | |
| Kristin,Brown | Ulster Activists | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council, Senator Martucci and Assemblyman Cahill, I served on the New Paltz Town Board for 12 years and helped pass our Wetlands, Clearing and Grading and Steep Slopes laws. But they don’t go far enough to help prevent catastrophic climate change and that is why I fully support the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. • Reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 below 1990 levels, and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. • • Generate 70% of electricity from renewable resources by 2030, and achieve a fossil fuel-free grid by 2040. • Please recommend that the 2022 legislative session enables regulatory action in time for a 2024 revised energy code. • In addition, please recommend that the State do the following: 1) Prepare on-line training classes on the CLPCA for town, planning and ZBA members. 2) Amend the state’s New York Industrial Agency policy to require compliance with the CLPCA in order to receive PILOTs. Thank you for your important work! | |
| Christopher,Tryjankowski | NYS-PHCC | My name is Chris Tryjankowski and I represent the NYS Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors and the Western New York Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors. These associations together represent over 1,000+ businesses and 20,000+ workers. While we support the initiative for a greener NYS we believe the goals are overly ambitious. The goals need to be set and reached without bringing unnecessary pain to businesses, workers, our community and economy. Natural gas, propane and heating oil are vital for New Yorkers way of life. The cost to abandon these sources and switch to all electric would be a burden on property owners. Given the costs of electrical upgrades and new appliances the cost for the average home would most likely be in the range of $25,000. I am not suggesting we abandon the important goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am asking that before we set any requirements, we develop a comprehensive and responsible plan that answers the following questions: 1. How will our electric grid handle the increased demand? 2. How can we ensure reliability? Especially in extreme weather and upstate winters? 3. What methods are best for reaching the goals? High-efficiency natural gas, hydrogen, biofuels, nuclear, solar, wind? 4. What new technologies should be used? Are these new technologies proven? 5. How can we transition to new energy sources in a way that doesn’t hurt the businesses and workforce that we currently rely on for our heating and energy needs? 6. And last but not least, how much will this cost all of us, how much will it cost businesses, how much will it cost citizens, and how will we pay for it. We do not have to choose between energy sources such as natural gas and renewable energy. It is a false choice. This plan should be driven by data and facts that get us to these goals in the best possible way for our community. | |
| Susan,Augenbraun | Thank you for recognizing how essential it is to electrify buildings and adopt zero emissions codes. It is encouraging to see the Draft Scoping Plan taking seriously the transition in buildings - both in clear next steps (like stopping utilities from marketing gas), and the acknowledgment of the careful planning needed as we move forward. Please ensure that disadvantaged New Yorkers, particularly renters and those in low-income communities, are protected during this transition. These communities need resources that will give them access to electrification of their homes and/or small businesses. Otherwise, an electrification mandate could harm the very people it should be protecting. Lower-income New Yorkers will be most vulnerable to spikes in energy pricing, and they may be burdened with costs incurred by their landlords during electrification (passed on as increased rents). We need guarantees that low-income communities will not bear electification costs disproportionately. | ||
| Theresa,Avery-Scigaj | Avery-Scigaj | While I agree it is urgently important that we have cleaner air, I believe the proposals are too extreme. The suggested cost savings will not be had by homeowners, commercial establishments or renters. Heating systems are expensive as it is and increased the cost will only make matters worse. Estimates for solar and wind power are not likely to be attained. Every time a new wind or solar farm is proposed, someone starts a complaint and they don't materialize. People have converted to gas ovens and dryers to save on their electric bill. With inflation the way it is, an increased electric bill is going to add to the burden. For many seniors like myself we have to set the thermostat a little higher. We bought a 97% efficient furnace at increased cost and our budget gas bill went down $22 per month. The variable speed blower lowered our electric bill as well. Why not have an option for a high efficiency furnace when replacements are needed which will be cheaper than retrofitting for a heat pump.. What are people supposed to do that installed natural gas backup generators. The power grid has gone out many times. People who use electrical medical equipment need these things. Sump pumps need to keep working. What about people that only have a 60 amp electrical service and will have to spend 4 or 5 thousand dollars to upgrade the service when their furnace, dryer and oven had to convert to electric. You need to find a way to ease the burden on the consumer. | |
| Izzy,Starr | Clean Air Coalition | I am proud to live in a state that has legislation to face the climate crisis and recognize its impact on our communities, particularly poor and working class communities of color. NY needs to move forward with Scenario 3, and implement low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion while simultaneously accelerating electrification of both buildings and transportation. This addresses environmental justice and public health challenges that communities continue to face, which will worsen in the coming years (outlined by IPCC reports). Current infrastructure is aging, outdated, and incapable of handling increased load. We must fund broad-scale updates to these infrastructures as soon as possible to frontload the work of the just transition. This must be funded. We must treat the CLCPA as the law that it is. Industry and government must be held to implementing it and have outlined consequences for breaking it. Carbon emissions must be taxed to use this money to fund reparations for EJ communities who continue to bear the brunt of harm from the lack of change. There must be specific timelines for reductions of emissions. We cannot use “renewable natural gas” which relies on waste incineration and is a health hazard that causes asthma and cancers, particularly in EJ communities. We cannot use nuclear energy, because the waste will be a radioactive cancer-causing problem for our descendants for tens of thousands of years. Further using these energies is a health and environmental hazard for all of us due to leaks and continued impact on emissions overall. Wind and solar are renewable energies that work and have been proven to work; this technology is available and will only improve as we turn toward it. The CLCPA needs to have strong labor standards to help transition workers from fossil fuel sectors into wind and solar sectors. We must have broad educational support for experienced professionals, youth, and the unemployed. To do this, the CLCPA must be generously funded. | |
| Misa,Yasumiishi | I am commenting on this 'gas-ban' (https://www.eenews.net/articles/n-y-governor-backs-nations-first-statewide-gas-ban/). The number of houses that this measure will affect is enormous, and the conversion will involve a vast amount of construction materials, labor force, and solar panels, which are mostly made in China. Not only could this measure collapse the housing market for millions of house owners but also practically impossible to achieve, considering the current supply chain and labor force strains. I've read that NY State will provide 'remodeling credits' of $3000-5000 for each house. But the amount is way less than the actual costs, particularly considering the current inflation rates. I strong ask NYSERDA and NY State to cancel altogether or postpone this measure for now. Why would you prefer solar panels, mostly made in China, to local, inexpensive, and less CO2 emission natural gas? Thanks. | ||
| Jade,Atherton | SUNY Morrisville | ||
| Morgan ,Crane | With the move towards making everything electric. farm equipment will need to be included I don't see how farmers are going to be able to pay to replace off of there farming equipment. If the state wants to transition into newer equipment there needs to be programs for smaller farms not just the huge ones. Many farms have roughly 10 tractors, that they bought over the course of many years. changing to electric equipment that means that they will have to buy new. What happens to the old? The state needs to give the farms money for not only transitioning but for buying there old equipment. There also needs to be more outreach to the community about what changes are being made. Not many people look at the New York states climate act page everyday. Its the newer people in schools that need to understand how they can make a difference with climate change. | ||
| Augusta,Mead | Liberty Renewables, Inc. | Please see the attached pdf concerning comments on the Draft Scoping Plan from Liberty Renewables. | has attachment |
| Iris ,Arno | See attached file | has attachment | |
| Lakesha,Johnson | Brent house | ||
| Rosemarie,Montante | While I agree that the future of the environment is important, we still have to consider the costs. We are moving to far to fast. It feels as though the people who will not be impacted by the costs are making serious decisions for those who are the most affected. It’s not how you lead and it’s most definitely not the right way to implement these changes. We need to balance this change with common sense and ultimately ask who is paying the bill ? We ignore other equally important issues because we are consumed by one. Why ? Because you know better? And I don’t ? Please. | ||
| Julie,Fischione | The average person, myself included cannot afford this plan. During a time of record inflation how dare you even consider putting more of a strain on us. You are breaking our backs. You are forcing us to leave our family and friends to find relief in other states. Shame on you all. You are out of touch with the common person and the struggle we have to make ends meet. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | I applaud the Draft Scoping Plan's recognition that New York State needs to phase out fossil gas and recommends some immediate obvious steps while acknowledging the need for careful planning. With fossil gas the largest source of heating fuel in NYS (as well as a major source of electricity generation), eliminating gas will be essential to the achievement of the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends two strategies that can be implemented immediately, both of which will contribute to halting the expansion of gas. One strategy would be the immediate halt to the marketing of gas by utilities and state agencies. The other would end the “100 foot rule” that requires utilities to build a distribution leg to any building that is within a hundred feet of a gas distribution line upon the owner’s request. Furthermore, it recommends that the Public Service Commission ban new gas service to existing buildings beginning in 2024. The Draft Scoping Plan acknowledges that contracting the distribution of fossil gas will take careful planning to ensure that the strategy for doing so is equitable and cost-effective while maintaining safety, affordability, and reliability. I know that fossil gas utilities like National Grid and workers now employed either by gas utilities or associated industries like laying pipelines have come to the hearings and been vocal about continuing to burn fossil gas. The concerns of these workers should be recognized as legitimate. The plan for managing the decline in fossil gas will be "equitable" to the degree these workers can find alternative and comparable employment. The management of these utilities, however, are self-serving, seeking to sustain their high salaries and returns on stock ownership even as the planet burns. They need no such consideration. | ||
| Kanwaldeep,Sekhon | Beyond Coal | Please see below the letter I had sent over to the editors at The Daily News. The news publisher published my letter on May 5th 2022. John Samuelsen and Constance Bradley have written a misleading op-ed (“Climate zealots vs. N.Y. homeowners and workers,” May 2) pushing National Grid’s false narrative that there is a way to make natural gas renewable and hydrogen clean, and that it could meet our energy needs. Not so. Is it climate zealotry that has led thousands of New Yorkers to pursue significant savings on their energy bills with solar panels and heat pumps for electric heating and cooling, which alleviate strain on the power grid? No one’s suggesting we junk our gas appliances all at once, only as they reach the end of their useful lives, or that retrofitting older homes will be an easy task, although it will be rich in employment opportunities for working-class people. The scoping plan must change the game from incentivizing gas to incentivizing renewable power, expanding investment in a workforce for a new age and in communities to help them transition. | has attachment |
| James,Beown | - There is no evidence to suggest that CO2 contributes to climate change - the idea that the climate changing is “bad” is only supported by models/simulations that have inputs that predetermine bad outcomes - the doomsday predictions from the “climate crisis” cult have been wrong every time - making energy less efficient (via investment in renewables and elimination of the use of natural gas, propane etc) has direct and measurable harms (no doomsday models needed!) - CO2 aka plant food is good for the environment. The mining for rare metals to create renewable energy sources, and the breakdown of these things over time (ie solar panels) is bad for the environment - there is no evidence to suggest that if implemented fully, these plans would actually change the weather (if you don’t know why that’s important, look up the definition of climate) | ||
| Jamie ,Krenzer | While spending lots of weeks studying the plan and talking with people. A main point needs to be addressed on the first page “ We are not trying to change or force farmers to do certain practices. This plan is for support and educate along with ways to help reduce climate change over the years to help benefit our state”. Communication across the state needs to increase. Many places were called regarding more information pertaining to the draft scoping plan and not alot of the people knew what it was. (And they needed to) People are just unaware of the things going on.The people that are trying to promote it should know about it. Make note and increase communications about grants and programs for funding because money is an issue for a lot of people, people are scared to invest or spend money where it isnt needed because we just went through the pandemic that put a hurting on lots of family farms and put a hold on work for some people. Ensuring that there is support will ease and encourage people/ farmers more. Make sure DEC, Corporative Extensions and soil and water county buildings know about the plan. I would modify that the scoping plan should encourage people to do this not force. The goals that the draft scoping plan have addressed certainly are doable however I think the goal first should be get people on board and show them this is ok. Setting long term dates might not be achievable if no one participates, I know short term is ard because you cant see a big change but maybe that should also be addressed. | ||
| Grace,Mok | Hello, The following was my letter to the editor as it appeared in the New York Daily News on May 5. Re “Unions fight plan to stop using gas in bldgs.,” May 4): It’s natural that workers who install natural gas lines would object to plans to ban their use. But they are being given the shaft by National Grid, which argues that so-called renewable gas and hydrogen could heat our homes. It just won’t work. Geothermal heating, on the other hand, is an idea with legs and a business that National Grid should get into, retraining their workers to become pros. Mayor Adams and the state Climate Action Plan are both trying to clean up buildings, which account for 70% of the city’s greenhouse gases. This effort will yield green union jobs in retrofitting, as well as cleaner and healthier air and a safer climate future. | ||
| Sean,Mullen | This whole plan will do far mare harm than good. There is absolutely nothing in this plan that will change climate change. The climate has always been and always will change and balance itself out. This plan is going to hurt far more people than it will help. It's just another example of politicians and bureaucrats not thinking anything through. | ||
| Yvonne,Chu | Climate Change Awareness & Action | I would like to thank the Climate Action Council for the time and effort that was put in to create this draft scoping plan. I would also encourage the CAC to take on an aggressive plan in order to implement the CLCPA and to go beyond the goals laid out in it. "Scenario 4- Beyond 85% Reduction" is the best scenario that has been put on the table. Although there will be many players and the fast transition will affect people in different ways, there is no doubt that there will be a bigger problem the longer we wait. Consider those who are most affected by climate change now, and the fact that they MUST be the recipients of the benefits of this transition. Waiting to make the changes that are needed to curb climate change will only deny them these benefits. Benefits that include: improved infrastructure (ALL ELECTRIC, NO GAS, NO BIOFUELS), access to green spaces, a healthy environment, clean water and clean air, better more secure and less dangerous employment opportunities, options for better and reliable transportation, etc. There have been suggestions that the use of biofuels or "renewable" natural gas could help the transition to electrification, however, the best option to help with the transition of electrification is to reduce the roadblocks associated with the building of solar and wind farms. It is in our best interest to jump over the use of biofuels and natural gas, because any continued installation of products for the use of these fossil fuels will only delay the transition, NOT accelerate it. The most important thing that I hope is emphasized once the scoping plan sessions end is that overall, the best thing that we could possibly do in this world to help with the GHG emissions is to reduce the amount of energy we use overall. That is something that we can begin by doing now, but can make a significant reduction with the help of better education, more efficient electric infrastructure, and built in policies that encourage energy reduction overall. | |
| Emily,Selinger | 350 Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan does not go far enough to protect disadvantaged New Yorkers, particularly renters, during the transition to electrification. The Draft Scoping Plan does acknowledge that low and moderate building owners and New Yorkers living in Disadvantaged Communities may need particular resources that give them access to electrifying their homes and small businesses. Integrating energy requirements and resources into affordable housing deals might expand access to low-cost yet efficient electrified housing. Unspecified regulatory and other strategies coupled with targeted investments could be used to advance equitable outcomes for low and moderate income households and for Disadvantaged Communities. And yet, low and moderate income New Yorkers are particularly vulnerable to spikes in energy prices that may occur during this transition. Improvements via building electrification may lead landlords to raise rents, displacing vulnerable renters. Predatory business practices by contractors may be exacerbated by the opportunities electrification presents. More robust and specific protections for low and moderate income New Yorkers and for Disadvantaged Communities need to be included in the Draft Scoping Plan’s recommendations. These should include a utility bill of rights for every household; a safety net of guarantees of affordable renewable energy for every consumer; and clawback provisions for public subsidies should a landlord use such improvements to raise rents. Enforcement of NYS’ current Energy Affordability Policy (energy costs should be no more than 6% of a household’s income) should be adequately funded. | |
| Emily,Selinger | 350Brooklyn | The plan needs to ensure that utility rates reinforce electrification, or provide a mechanism for alternative compensatory funding. For many single-family homes, a heat pump retrofit in addition to an air-sealing or insulation upgrade will cost more than $21,000. This, combined with the fact that there are little to no financial savings on utility costs from switching from natural gas to electric heating, means that much of the time heat pump projects are difficult for many building owners to afford long-term. Additionally, for residential (1-4 unit) buildings, the incentive amounts were decreased by Con Edison for installations occurring on or after March 1, 2022. It has consequently become more costly for building owners to install heat pumps and decommission their current fossil fuel equipment. It is imperative to increase incentives for heat pump projects also given the recent increase in electric utility costs. | |
| Lynn,Tondrick | As a member of a community unfairly burdened with proximity to the BQE and some of the worst traffic areas in the United States of America I feel strongly about supporting electric vehicles/trucks and regulating use of same for last mile transit. Our community is a last mile transit hub. Truck traffic on local streets is intensive. While the Plan does recognize the significance of heavy-traffic areas like ports and depots to the climate crisis, it should also make recommendations that address the burdens last mile warehouses and just-in-time delivery make to global warming. The Plan recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopt regulations similar to California’s Advanced Clean Fleets proposal that require that medium- and heavy-duty trucks in use in heavy-traffic areas become Zero-Emission Vehicles by 2035. This proposal should integrate concerns with last-mile fulfillment centers, just-in-time stocking practices, and next-day delivery offerings. Such fulfillment centers are often placed in environmental justice communities that consequently see a steep rise in truck traffic. The transition to ZEV’s would certainly lower air pollution but would not in itself improve safety or community quality of life. Shifting from distribution designs that prioritize speed to ones that prioritize the fewest miles traveled would reduce energy consumption while improving safety | ||
| Lynn,Tondrick | In order to meet the emissions and equity goals of the Climate Act aspects of the Draft Scoping Plan aspects must be supported and strengthened. We MUST phase out fossil fuels in electricity generation by 2040. This simply is no longer optional. We must deny new gas infrastructure permits to avoid increases in GHG emissions and creation of more stranded assets. Many of New York's fossil fuel plants are already at retirement age (72% of gas turbines!) I support the process laid out in the Scoping Plan for regulations that ensure a continual decline in GHG emissions from power plants, reaching zero by 2040. I submit that the Final Scoping Plan must also: Prioritize retirement of fossil fuel-fired plants whose emissions disproportionally harm disadvantaged communities, consistent with the Climate Act. Ensure protections for all communities facing plant closures, including: Training and supportive services for displaced workers, beginning well before plant retirement, to enable a smooth job transition. Sufficient funding of the Electric Generation Facility Cessation Mitigation Program to reduce the local property tax impacts of plant closure on municipalities and school districts. Ensure Plant-owner responsibility for the costs of site remediation. Encourage re-use of power plant sites for battery storage. This would not only support the clean energy transition but would also help to mitigate the revenue | ||
| Lynn,Tondrick | We have installed solar on our building and are very happy with the results in reduced carbon footprint, and reduced electricity bill. Other's in my Environmental Justice Community of Sunset Park are participating in Community Solar. This benefits our community by providing cleaner power at a reduce rate for many who are on fixed or limited incomes. The Draft Scoping Plan advocates for the promotion of Community Choice Aggregation. With CCA entire communities enter into contracts with an electricity provider, with the provision that individual consumers within a community can opt out of participation. The Plan points out that NYS communities who have set up CCAs to date have overwhelmingly chosen renewables as their source, thus supporting the expansion of renewable generation, and have generally paid less for their electricity than they otherwise would have. The Plan notes the particular importance to low income households of participation in a CCA. | ||
| Christine,Arroyo | |||
| Suzanne,Coogan | This is a copy of a letter submitted to the Batavia Daily News May 8, 2022. To the Editor: Re: “Editorial: More input needed: State’s Climate Action Council must listen to concerns of critics,” May 4 The hidden message of your editorial seems to be that we should gather input on the scoping plan until the plan becomes meaningless, that changing our ways, while necessary, is impossible, that fighting climate change is simply impracticable. It ain’t so. Even in the North country, we can heat our homes electrically. Technology has caught up with our climate. New construction must be electric, but homeowners aren’t being forced to retrofit their homes on a schedule. Extravagant forced conversions are a myth. The state must invest in electrifying older homes, with a goal of two million by 2030. Car companies, like our local GM, are banking on people’s buying electric cars. That company is planning an electric-only lineup by 2035. There are going to be a lot fewer gas stations, and those employees, as others in the fossil fuel field, will have found good-paying jobs in fast-growing renewable energy. The scoping plan must get wind and solar projects off the drawing board swiftly, with year by year targeting of new facilities. The Office of Renewable Energy Siting must be fully staffed and functional. We must have a meaningful moratorium on new gas plants, and an active effort to retire existing ones. Change is hard, but climate change is harder, and it’s here and causing us harm. There need be no debate about that. | ||
| Kari,White | Fordham University | This drafted plan is essential for enabling NYC to prepare for the climate crisis, as well as simply making a better city in general. The acknowledgement and prioritization of Disadvantaged Communities is especially crucial, as without naming the most negatively impacted communities this plan would simply deepen the divide between the wealthy and the poor. As a college student residing in the Bronx, there's still trash in the streets, smog in the sky, and gas-guzzling cars and trucks clogging up the highways. Countless reports show that childhood asthma is higher in the Bronx than in any of the other boroughs of NYC, and that it has the highest morbidity rate. Ensuring that areas like the Bronx receive more attention and more resources than less negatively impacted areas is an essential, equitable policy that would ameliorate the decades of pollution and poverty that these Disadvantaged Communities have had to suffer. In a similar vein, the Just Transition from the current system to the one outlined in the plan is well structured, as the state should provide ample time and resources for companies and individuals to ease into the proposed plans. Overall, I'm in support of this draft of the scoping plan. | |
| Alexander,Dillon | Long Island Progressive Coalition, NY Renews | My name is Alex Dillon, and I am a deeply regretful contributor to GHG emissions, from when I take a hot shower in the morning, boil my coffee, and hop on the train to work. And I’m a disposer of waste, and I know the waste I throw out gets taken far from where I live, in my privileged, white community, and goes to landfills, where it leaks methane gas and contributes to asthma, lung diseases, and cancers for the front-line, impoverished, and communities of color who live there. And it makes it no better if that waste incinerated as part of the energy transition we need to be making. Now, the Scoping Plan is a remarkable document, but waste-incineration is just one of the false solutions it must eliminate, along with biofuels, which will continue to emit tons of GHGs, so called “renewable natural gas,” which is dirty methane gas, no matter where it comes from, and unproven carbon capture. The scoping plan needs to focus on methods that work and are already under way – solar and wind. And it needs to support the state’s full electrification, so that consumers like me, who want and can afford to stop emitting GHGs once and for all, can actually do it! Look, I want to buy an all-electric vehicle, but there’s no place in my community to charge it! Meanwhile Norway has over 60% electric vehicles, and will eliminate internal combustion vehicles within the next three years. What are we, a third world country? Come on, New York State. We can do better than we’re doing. The carbon-emissions era is ending, and the renewable energy era is here. Now’s the time for courage, not cowardice. Looking forward, not back. Adopt Scenario Three. Eliminate all GHG-emitting fuel, whether from underground or from burning trash. Green the grid now, electrify transportation, electrify all buildings. Create a green labor force and programs to help fossil-fuel industry workers transition into it. Create a permanent funding mechanism to make this happen. And finally, strike the h | |
| Mark,Keller | Sadly, your entire plan is based on a false assumption that if we de-carbonize we will improve our environment to make long term sustainability, when it is clear that the other large pollution-generating countries - China, Indo-Asia, and Russia - will not participate in these liberal gestures that will only serve to box the US and NYS into non-competitive economic systems driving our cost of living into another level of mathematical computation. Just reading a single NYSERDA research piece on heat pumps for cold - ie. upstate NY - climates reveals that estimates from several years ago indicate basic costs for heat pump and shell enhancements will run $25-80,000, and that was before our last two years of record inflationary increases, supply chain strangulation, and retraction of global cooperation on such comprehensively challenging initiatives. Every home, every apartment, every building - you cannot justify the outrageous expense to complete this pipe-dream. NYS does not need to lead the country or other countries, but what it should and must do is get a full understanding how it is governmentally driving away key demographics of the population, and killing any hope for future industrial - ie. JOBS - growth in the state without use of resources such as natural gas and considerable electrical grid enhancements in production and distribution. There will be no "climate justice" when we continue the downward affluent population shift spiral, and the increasing brain-drain of high tech production capabilities to follow. There is not enough funds to pay for all this, especially by NYSERDA grants and federal initiatives. Time to get real and focus emissions control and technologies towards improved efficiencies in the community around us. | ||
| Nivo,Rovedo | Recently we got more warnings from the climate crisis: torrential rains and flooding in Ulster County, and dire predictions for the planet from the United Nations climate panel. Meanwhile in Albany, important legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions wasn't prioritized within this year's New York State budget. Wake up, people! There is still hope: Key elected officials should get on board to pass meaningful and robust climate laws. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie must shrug off the lobbying and donations from the oil and gas industry and do the right thing: bring up the All-Electric Building Act and related legislation for a vote. Similarly, Senate Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Gov. Hochul must signal their strong support for this and the other climate legislation on decarbonizing the building and transportation sectors. And New Yorkers can speak up to advocate for strong climate policies, through the public hearings and comments now being accepted on the Climate Action Council draft scoping plan. Visit [email protected] to submit your comments. I'm sick and tired of the climate crisis being kicked down the road by political calculations and short-term thinking. As the U.N. report warns, we don't have time for that anymore. Floods, fires, droughts, food shortages and population displacements are in our future if we don't act. Think these things can't happen here? Wake up! | ||
| Charles,Butler | Electricity is not carbon-neutral. It is created by burning fossil fuels. It is also the most expensive form of heat and forcing everyone to use it is regressive. The electrical grid can fail any time of year, for weeks or months. Supplemental or back-up heating appliances using propane, kerosene, coal, and wood need to be allowed. Biomass is already part of the atmospheric carbon pool. If it is not used for heat, or to generate electricity, it will eventually oxidize and return to the atmosphere as CO2. The use of fire is part of what makes us human and burning wood to keep warm and cook food is a basic human right. | ||
| James,Loomis | Having read the entire Draft Scoping Plan, I applaud the work as both comprehensive and complete. My concern is that the subsequent legislation and regulation, following the recommendations of the plan, leans very heavily on both NYSERDA and DEC. I wonder if those agencies have the capacity or will need to be reinforced to successfully pursue the plan. Also, while a vast amount of work is outlined in the plan, some phases seem predicated on the completion of others. I am not persuaded that these conditional issues will be sufficiently understood. For example, to establish and electric (EV) bus fleet, there must first be some training and charging infrastructure in place. There are many places in the State where the local connection to the grid does not have the capacity needed and the personnel will not know how to manage the charging and maintenance. Thank you. | ||
| Dean,Cole | I have been a Forester for my company for 50 years managing my properties under sustainable guide lines. Trees being a renewable resource should be utilized to the maximum use including use as a heating source for homes. I do not believe that there are a high percentage of homes in NYS that heat with wood to make any difference especially compared to the amount of smoke from wild fires across the nation. Perhaps resources, time and money should be spent elsewhere such as infrastructure. | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | The letter below is one I submitted to the Buffalo News, which was published on May 5th. I didn’t fully follow the April 30 letter’s references to elitism (“Climate Action Council should pay close attention”), but I could see that it was mighty hostile to our mutual need to segue from fossil fuels to renewable power. The era of fossil fuels must end. Only fossil fuel interests would have you think otherwise, as they would have you think that there are alternative clean fossil fuel sources. That’s their narrative, and it suits their business plans. We err when we focus only on the costs of switching to renewables, and not on the burgeoning costs we are already experiencing of continuing to burn fossil fuels. If you don’t want to include soaring insurance costs because of increasing floods and storms, think of public health. Fossil fuel use equals death from respiratory and heart disease. It means failing our children through low birthweight and neurological deficits. Already, it means summer heat death. | |
| Paul,Kwiecinski | It's time for our generation to act like grownups and get into serious action around climate change and saving the soil. We need to show leadership to the rest of the country and act swiftly, powerfully, and decisively. | ||
| Katie,Rockford | The Draft Scoping Plan does not properly or adequately address environmental justice issues. You need to have more feasible timelines and give LMI and disadvantaged communities a bigger say in the process in a way that is more accessible. Many people in these communities may not have the resources, education, or time to read through the entire draft scoping plan. Additionally, how do you expect them to pay for electric vehicles and heat pumps? You need to have more clear outlines of where funds are coming from. | ||
| Marlena,Fontes | Hi this is a letter I submitted to the Daily News on May 7th, 2022. Thanks! To the Editor: Bob Cavaliere, you’ve got it all wrong. The Climate Action Committee’s climate scoping plan is not forcing electric heating down New Yorkers’ throats. But New Yorkers who have made the switch on their own to air or ground source heating and cooling, plus induction stoves, are saving money on energy and breathing cleaner air. I don’t want my young children subject to the harmful indoor pollution caused by natural gas, plus the climate change greenhouse emissions are causing. The All-Electric Building Act would mandate no new gas hook-ups in new construction. Retrofitting of older buildings is going to require major investment by the state. The climate scoping plan must support two million retrofitted homes by 2030. It's time to get dirty gas out of our climate and our economy. The climate scoping plan must get renewable energy plants open and gas plants closed. | ||
| James,Carmody | New York Renews | Here is my full comment from today's climate hearing: "Thank you, members of the Climate Action Council, for hearing us on what the Climate Plan must do for our state. I’m James Carmody a lifelong resident of a N.Y. City suburb on the ancestral land of the Wappinger people, where the anxiety of climate change has adversely affected my life. Gas-combustion transit is the norm of the lower Hudson valley’s Putnam County, and winter heat is mostly supplied by oil or gas burners, both of which are well known to us all as big causes of Climate Change carbon emissions. It’s so serious that my personal mental health has been suffering from the normalizing of these pollutants – for reasons that include my climate anxiety, I’ve been hospitalized no less than 15 times in psych hospitals since I was fifteen years old. It’s been madness, and it needs to be better. So, what can New York do to handle climate change better? We, the people, deserve a just transition away from fossil fuels, toward clean energy. Folks across our state, especially communities of our poor and our neighbours of colour, will need help living good lives without the gas-and-oil systems that are still normal here. Thus, jobs in the clean energy field are going to need minimum prevailing wage pay ; good benefits like insurance for workers ; and local hires for local jobs, with workforce development available from the state. And New York has the power to get us these just solution jobs. All it’ll take is funding action on the Climate Act, which could be done with the stalled climate and community investment’s $15,000,000,000 act for climate action. Many more state bills, like the All-Electric Buildings act, are also set to regulate polluting industries; in these ways, the rules from Albany would and will be able to fund a better future for New York. So, please remember to fund good, just jobs. We'll thank you." | |
| Eric,Zeise | Metro Justice, Rochester, NY |
Thank-you for this
opportunity to speak. My name is Eric
Zeise, from Rochester, NY. The cost of INACTION is MUCH greater than the cost
of action to enable the goals of the CLCPA law. The societal impacts and
costs of delay are growing exponentially.
Any realization of the CLCPA goals must be defined in a just and
equitable manner. I have six
suggestions: First, to develop
Incentives to make the RIGHT choice the INEXPENSIVE choice. Second, to enable
disadvantaged communities and TENANTS to see the benefits of affordable
weatherization improvements and energy burden reductions. Third, distributed electrification is KEY to our State’s stability. Electricity prices are controlled locally, fossil fuel prices are volatile and controlled globally, by OPEC. Fourth, non-profit and community-owned projects can and do provide significantly greater COMMUNITY BENEFITS PER DOLLAR INVESTED than much larger commercial projects. Owners look after their own interests first. Please help enable this path. Fifth, immense areas of municipal, commercial and residential rooftop areas are out of sight, but should not be out of mind. Don’t forget landfills, brownfields, parking lots and highway rights of way. Siting policy can enable significantly better use of these valuable resources. Sixth, and not least, workforce development must be a strong priority, to enable the many new jobs needed in this transition AND to provide a safe landing for the workforce adversely affected by this transition. Please, SET A STRONG EXAMPLE and enable a just and equitable transition, following Scenario Three, to completely fund the enacted CLCPA law, avoiding dangerous distractions from moneyed self-interests. This may be our State’s ONE CHANCE to create a just, safe and equitable future for our and future generations. I greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by the Climate Action Council on our behalf. Thank-you. |
|
| Grace,Mok | Last fall, the remnants of Hurricane Ida, which made landfall in Louisiana, drowned an Asian American immigrant family in their basement apartment. I was devastated. My family is an Asian American immigrant family. My family lived in a building in Queens with a basement unit. Climate change is already killing people of color and low-income people. I urge the Climate Action Council to get our homes off fossil fuels and pass a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants. Essentially– no new gas. Council, transformational government action is within your power. Thanks to legislation like the Clean Air Act, outdoor air pollution has decreased dramatically…to the point where indoor air pollution is often worse than outdoor air pollution! Why? Because we are burning fossil fuels in our homes. Gas is dangerous. Just last night, our gas stove was accidentally on. If I had lit a candle for a romantic Friday night, it would have been…not so romantic. I want no new gas in our homes. Outside my apartment, I can always see the power plants along the East River. Those power plants are why Astoria is known as Asthma Alley. I want no new gas in our communities. If you don’t smoke for health reasons, why would you burn fossil fuels in your home or community? | ||
| nikolas ,kenworthey | Hi, My name is Nikolas Kenworthey I'm in the 8th grade. I live in Astoria, NY. I am no expert but I do have a suggestion for your draft scoping plan. I am a part of the Veggie Nuggets, a youth climate activist group. I'm here to talk about my future and how climate change affects it. For example, I walk 3 blocks to get on a bus to then walk another 3 avenue blocks just to get to school. Sometimes the wait to get onto these buses is close to an hour. It's sometimes faster to just walk the 60 blocks to school. Even though the buses have improved a lot, the CLCPA could help add more buses to neighborhoods and let children get the sleep they need for school. Without the funding, nothing else could happen. As well as many infrastructure problems there are also many environmental problems. I sometimes practice at soccer fields close to power plants and see lots of people that live right next to them. Since my father has asthma this pains me to see people living right next to these fossil plants and the risk of them contracting lung diseases. Your scoping plan would help to diminish these fossil fuel plants and replace them with greener cleaner power generators. This would help all the people living around the area by not giving them a disease just by breathing air. | ||
| Kyle,Gehring | Give me some of that clean Quebecoise hydropower! Also build as many offshore wind turbines as physically possible! | ||
| Leonard,Rodberg | NY Energy and Climate Advocates | I am Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies at Queens College, CUNY. I hold a PhD in nuclear physics from MIT and am a member of NY Energy and Climate Advocates. The Climate Action Council’s scoping plan declares that “wind, water, and sunlight will power most of New York’s economy in 2050.” This plan is completely unrealistic and its vast cost totally unnecessary. It omits the largest, most reliable, and most cost-effective carbon-free energy source we have, nuclear power. For decades, nuclear has supplied nearly a third of the state’s electricity and half its clean power. The Council’s plan allows it to fade away, without any explanation for this omission. However, the plan itself admits that the goal of producing emission-free electricity “cannot currently be met by the deployment of these existing [renewable] technologies… there is a remaining need for 15 to 25 gigawatts of electricity generation.” This is a huge gap requiring a reliable, affordable energy source, comparable in size to the state’s current total of oil- and gas-burning plants.. In the Council’s plan, this backup source operates just 10 days a year. Since we need to build such a large source, shouldn’t we run it full-time and reduce the need for much of the solar and wind now in the plan? Treat it as the backbone of the system, not just a limited backup. Just a dozen nuclear plants like the now-shuttered Indian Point facility will eliminate the need for 90% of the solar and wind in the Council’s plan, There would be far less destruction of the environment of our state, and hundreds of billions of dollars would be saved. In short, the all-renewable path envisioned in the Council’s plan is excessively costly and won’t meet the state’s energy needs. Nuclear power, supplemented by renewables, can supply what’s needed. The Council has to redo its plan, incorporating nuclear power from the beginning. | |
| Floyd,Vergara | Clean Fuels Alliance America | Clean Fuels Alliance America comments on the Draft Scoping Plan for the Climate Action Council's consideration. Topics covered i nclude the Clean Fuel Standard, Public Health Benefits, and GHG Accounting. | has attachment |
| David,Ash | Target | Regarding waste... That's what this committee is. | |
| Carole,Herbert | Consideration of the financial burden on senior citizens who are homeowners must/ should be considered. Also, consider the impact on the grid if EVERYTHING is electric. Infrastructure is not in place and won’t be in the next 8 years to support this. Many of us have back up generators for when the power ( electric) goes out, which is happening more frequently in the last few years, especially in certain areas. I am for cleaner energy, but a combination of energy sources makes much more sense than all electric. | ||
| M,Hendry | This plan is absolutely ridiculous! With the electrical grid having blackouts (both impromptu and scheduled) in addition to regular failure (power outages) we should NOT EVEN CONSIDER full electrification and the Federal government is WRONG in pushing for electrification of transportation. The US has an abundance of natural resources including Natural Gas and Oil reserves, with infrastructure already in place. Allowing a natural pace for those that CHOOSE renewable energy vs US resources is a more practical transition. Given long term effects of excessive electrification of everything (houses, cars, truck, agricultural machinery etc) heavily utilizing battery power in varied climates from extreme cold wet to arid hot temperatures is not well established, personally dangerous, and threatens national security. The infrastructure to support such a transition is no where near ready for such a rapid deployment of electrification. The roadways of the state can not be well maintained with additional gas & fuel taxes, because it was robbed via politicians & special interest groups. QUIT TAXING NY TO DEATH! A far more responsible resolution to electrification would be to subsidize individuals who CHOOSE to add electricity, and electric (battery operated) vehicles and equipment. | ||
| Joseph,Carosella | What a Joke! So we are going backwards. I have converted my house to energy efficient heating and cooling with out the government telling me how to do it. I have installed hydronic floor heating, the latest and most efficient models on the market. Installed insulated concrete forms and mass wall heat storage I have doubled my house size and reduced my usage of fuel by aprox 50 %. Now I am going to have to listen to a Climate council of so called experts on how we should live. You have all lost your minds, turning energy into a racial subject. You actually think you are going to change the climate with your ideas. Not going to happen no matter how much you try. Our energy usage since I was a kid has become much cleaner, we use less, and the environment has gotten better. Cars are more efficent, Trucks have become Yes I believe we should do all we can to protect the planet and our environment, just can't do it with a flip of the switch. If we all went to electric today we would not be able to generate enough power to handle the demand. Yes people get flooded, problem is people have built houses in flood plains, valleys and gorges and along oceans. Yes a lot of these locations have beautiful views most of the time, but with mother nature has a bad day yes you will have flooding, winds you name it. If you build in these locations that's the risk you assume. The world is ever changing and not stoppable by the people of NY State, What about China, India, and many of the other countries whose emission standards are only getting worse. How about you get them to do what the US already does, Good Luck, don't think they will do it for you. Yes I ramble but this is a pipe dream feel good group that I consider to be waste of time. I appreciate your hard work trying to waste money of the people of New York. PS: LED Bulbs are the biggest waste of money going, they don't last like they you say they should, yes I have tried many types and not the cheap ones. | ||
| Ernest,Masullo | CRAZY is the only word I can find that describes the stopping of natural gas. I know you will never convince the green people that " alternative energy" only goes so far. A little Bio. I am 70 years old. I remember coal being delivered to our house. I had to shovel it into the furnace. I remember when my father transition to a new natural gas furnace one of the best inventions ever. We all grew up with natural gas and lived warm and happy. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN BIRDS GATHER AROUND THE CHIMNEY DURING THE WINTER TO STAY WARM? I have never seen a bird fall dead due to the exhaust generated by natural gas. I had the pleasure to serve on a local school board for 5 years. We had many building projects that I was involved in. Prior to my time on the board, the district built a brand new school. It was state of the art ALL ELECTRIC BUILDING. After about 10 years, the district realized that the cost of operating an all electric building was putting a financial burden on the tax payers. So the decision was made to tap into the districts gas well and go to natural gas for the heating of the building. The district seen a immediate drop in cost of heating the building.Electricity has its place. ex: lighting, power to run equipment etc. I was an administration for a department in a local municipality. During my tenure a local green enthusiast hounded the council with all kinds of date that solar was the way to go. The municipality invested approximately one million dollars to put solar panels on all town owned buildings which was supposed to give a positive return in ten years. While I was there, the system had many issues and multiple times the buildings had to revert back to the grid. To my knowledge the system has not met its stated goal. Not to be long winded, It is insane to get rid of natural gas and go to all electric. OUR GRID SYSTEM CANNOT HANDLE THE DEMAND NOW. JUST LOOK AT TEXAS. WIND AND SOLAR MAKE UP A VERY SMALL PORTION OF OUR POWER. WE CANNOT AFFORD THE COST NOW. | ||
| Kelly,Finn | I feel these mandates are not only costly, they are a lifestyle change. They will negatively impact lower and middle income families financially, therefore cause increased mental health problems. | ||
| Teresa,Kracker | The NYS Climate Act that is being proposed is a terrible idea. It will raise the cost of energy use for all consumers. Heating with electricity in a cold weather climate is extremely expensive. The energy grid will not be able to support the extra demand that will be placed on it. New home construction prices will be so much more. This will make buying a home prohibitive for lower income families. Please do not pass the NYS Climate Act. We are already have one of the states with the highest cost of living. Do not drive away more businesses and home owners by enacting this. | ||
| Wendy,Fried | There is much to praise in the Draft Scoping Plan (including the recognition that we must revamp our electrical transmission system to support the clean and renewable energy sources that are the path to the future we all deserve). However, I sincerely hope that the final draft of the plan will acknowledge that we can no longer keep building new fossil fuel plants and letting the industry pretend that we will "someday" transition away from gas and oil. Someday is NOW. None of this is easy, but it must be done. I also hope to see in the final draft a recommendation that utilities be required to pay small-scale solar suppliers to the grid at rates that will motivate lots of building owners to install solar on their roofs. This is especially important here in Brooklyn where I live. Large solar arrays are also crucial, of course, but NYS needs many smaller solar adopters if we are to meet our emissions goals. It's an "all hands on deck" situation. More solar in our neighborhoods also means that more people will get to experience the benefits of renewable energy—lower costs, cleaner air—which will help build support and acceptance for other aspects of the energy transition. As a New Yorker, I appreciate the CAC's hard work and the seriousness with which you are approaching the task set for you. Thank you for considering my comments. | ||
| Aiyana, Masla | I work with children as a teacher, and our truly historic work passing the CLCPA, the most progressive climate legislation in the country, is incomplete until we ensure it matches the scale and urgency of the moment and benefits who it was intended to benefit. The children I work with need this to be executed thoughtfully, for their safety and survival. In order to reach a zero-emissions power sector by 2040, New York needs a rapid, large-scale transition away from fossil fuels. New York’s Final Scoping Plan must not contain false solutions to the climate crisis like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, biomass, waste incineration, and so-called “green” hydrogen. It must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies. In order to ensure a just transition to a renewable energy economy, we must uplift our workers while advancing policies to attract new family-sustaining unionized green jobs to New York. The CAC must come down in strong support of labor standards, including policies to require prevailing wage and benefits, local hire, project labor agreements, community benefits agreements, and protect existing workers’ wages. The state should leverage its purchasing and contracting power to prioritize companies and contracts that support local hires and job access for traditionally excluded groups, creating jobs along the clean energy, clean transport, and low-carbon supply chains. The carrying out of this legislation is the most urgent and important thing I see happening in our state -- and I will do whatever I can and must to participate in an affective, thoughtful, plan that ensures the safety of the children of our city and benefits who it has the potential to benefit. | ||
| Ryan,Stanton | Long Island Federation of Labor | ||
| Greg,Moon | The NYS Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan fails to acknowledge the value of embodied carbon in natural building material supplies. The FIRST true “GREEN” options in New York State will inevitably come from the Forest Products Industry. But, those making the decisions about the “green” future of our state are routinely omitting the original GREEN….the Forests! Ensuring the plans and regulations for our future include wood as a preferred building materials will assist our State in achieving climate change goals. There are things to consider before this Scoping Plan is codified: All-Electric Buildings – proposals within the draft Scoping Plan and bills before the New York Legislature for Advanced Building and Energy Codes and the All-Electric Buildings Act would require all new construction and substantial modifications of existing buildings to be fully electric and free of any greenhouse gas emissions. That means no wood stoves, no modern wood heat furnaces and no gas cooking stoves, beginning as early as 2024. The estimated requirements for electrifying an average home would be somewhere between $25, 000 and $60,000. Presently, there is no exception for renewable wood heat and use of wood residuals in our sectors manufacturing processes. Embodied carbon – the sum of total carbon emitted during a product’s lifecycle – is an important measurement for construction materials like concrete and steel, and for building products like insulation. Embodied carbon consists of all the GHG emissions associated with building construction, including those that arise from extracting, transporting, manufacturing, and installing building materials on site, as well as the operational and end-of-life emissions associated with those materials. These carbon savings are realized when use of the insulating material results in building-energy savings that offsets the embodied carbon of the material itself. Wood provides the highest rates of carbon offsets of all building material | ||
| Priscilla,Auchincloss | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft scoping plan for implementation of the CLCPA. I write as a life-long citizen of NYS, resident of Rochester in Monroe County, and a member of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association of NY (NOFA-NY). I'm not a farmer but an organic consumer. I support ALL of NOFA-NY's comments, because they provide specific, closely-studied mechanisms to provide food for the State and region using methods known to preserve, protect, rebuild natural ecosystems. We know we will need food. We know that conventional forms of agriculture and animal husbandry are causes of climate disruption, but we have the knowledge and the skill-base to shift to organic, regenerative, biodynamic, eco-friendly agriculture. With supportive State policies, we can do this in a way that builds livelihoods and careers, as well as clean air, water, and soil – the foundation of a resilient economy. NOFA-NY embodies and represents organic farmers and the crucial, evolving knowledge and skill-base needed to bring the people of NYS through the oncoming crisis. I wish to highlight NOFA-NY’s call for the State, with local community involvement, to design and implement a Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) Program that rewards farmers for the many interrelated and essential ecosystem services that their farms provide. The goal here is to protect and restore soil resources, while strengthening urban and rural economies, by providing income to those who regenerate soil while producing food, fiber, building materials, and medicine. PES captures some of what it takes to change direction – avoid disaster – by directing funding away from costly technological fixes to problematic practices and towards the people and enterprises now laying the foundation of a resilient, regenerative economy. Such a program, in addition to helping farmers and farming as a career, could also support and incentivise the adoption of regenerative land-use practices more widely. | ||
| Jae,Zimmermann | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the waste sector, which accounts for 12% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, New York must enact policy immediately to reduce landfill waste, divert organic waste, and encourage sustainable use of materials. These policies must equitably serve New York residents. The final scoping plan must: - Rapidly end single-use packaging. Single-use packaging must be phased out and eliminated in retail stores and other locations, as it contributes to landfill waste consisting largely of non-recyclable material. - Create a surcharge on landfill waste. The amendment and expansion of the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law tackles the organic waste issue at its financial core- that it is relatively cheaper to dispose of organic waste in the landfill than it is to recycle. By imposing a surcharge on landfill waste (making it more expensive) to financially support reduction, reuse and recycling, the price of disposing waste in landfills will be made closer to its real environmental, societal and economic cost. | ||
| Eban,Goodstein | I am continuing my comments-- again, it is critical that NY State provide global leadership on cliamate. This will allow us to create robust economic opportunities, while other jurisdictions follow our lead. 1. Ban construction of fossil fuel facilities: NO NEW FOSSIL FUELS. To achieve the goal of retiring fossil fuel facilities and reducing fossil fuel dependency, it is of paramount importance that no new fossil fuel infrastructure is constructed. Funds should go towards expanding renewable capacity, assisting disadvantaged communities, and investing in energy storage. 2. Set clear and rapid targets for ending fossil fuel generation. Tangible, specific, and clearly articulated targets for ending fossil fuel generation must be established and evaluated to ensure adherence to climate goals. 3. Establish incentives for small-scale distributed solar and storage. Incentives for solar and storage on a rooftop scale are essential, since introducing smaller scale solar and storage will effectively integrate more renewable resources into communities and reduce reliance on polluting power plants. 4. Incentivize a shift away from nitrogen fertilizer use. Nitrogen fertilizers produce potent greenhouse gas emissions in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O) that must be comprehensively addressed. 5. Ensure that carbon sinks from improved forestry and soil management are guaranteed to achieve the >60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide sequestration required to meet New York’s commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 6. Finally, Price carbon, using a fee and dividend structure to effectively internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions across sectors. It is most fair for a carbon price to start low and gradually rise each year, and must apply to all sectors of the economy. The other elements of the plan require significant investment and in addition to a dividend, carbon funds should be used to achieve the plan elements. | ||
| Julia,Gloninger | -Price carbon, using a fee and dividend structure to effectively internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions across sectors. It is most fair for a carbon price to start low and gradually rise each year, and must apply to all sectors of the economy. New York’s current strategy, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), only prices the electricity sector and impedes the electrification of buildings and transit. -Adhere to the most stringent greenhouse gas reduction scenario (Scenario 4) in the draft scoping plan. Climate change is a personal issue for each and every one of us. A scenario that gambles our livable futures away through reliance on highly uncertain “negative emissions technologies” and anything less than rapid and complete decarbonization of all emitting sectors acts in direct disservice to all New Yorkers. New York must lead on climate with bold commitments and relentless efforts to achieve zero emissions fully and equitably by 2050. | ||
| Julia,Gloninger | Industry -Address cryptocurrency with a plan to regulate its huge energy consumption and avoid the environmental impact of resulting greenhouse gas emissions. -Collaborate with surrounding states to adopt complementary regulations that prevent emissions “leakage” and the export of New York industries. -Follow the Climate Justice Working Group’s recommendations on technological solutions to replace fossil fuel combustion in industry processes, recognizing that hydrogen combustion for high-heat processes can create harmful nitrous oxide emissions. -Ensure that benefits from decarbonizing industry are equitably distributed and that any negative impacts, such as new pollution from combustion of green hydrogen, do not negatively impact Disadvantaged Communities. -Support workers whose livelihoods are impacted by the decarbonization of industry. | ||
| Julia,Gloninger | Agriculture and Forestry -Incentivize a shift away from nitrogen fertilizer use. Nitrogen fertilizers produce potent greenhouse gas emissions in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O) that must be comprehensively addressed. -Ensure that carbon sinks from improved forestry and soil management are guaranteed to achieve the >60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide sequestration required to meet New York’s commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. -Incentivize a shift towards climate-friendly animal feeding practices, including the use of dietary supplements for ruminant livestock that may significantly reduce methane emissions. -Regulate Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and their negative environmental impacts. -Develop a plan to address emissions from tractors and farm equipment. While emissions from tractors and farm equipment make up a small percentage of emissions from agriculture, this plan should include a practical pathway to decarbonize farm equipment that is essential to New York’s food production while supporting New York farmers in this fuel transition. | ||
| CJ,Kelley | |||
| Julia,Gloninger | Waste -Implement more stringent organics recycling and food donation programs for major food generators. Stronger programs on major food generators (hospitals, universities, restaurants and supermarkets, etc) is a very efficient way to reduce and recycle organic waste. In addition to targeting the bulk of organic waste in the state, this will also set an example for smaller food generators as well as individuals and households. -Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. - -Create a textile waste reduction program. Not only would a textile waste reduction program reduce methane and CO2 emissions, but it would also reduce both the water waste and water contamination that goes into textile production. This initiative would, overall, promote a sustainable mindset in the textile industry, encouraging the recycling of products created. | ||
| CJ,KELLEY | |||
| Julia,Gloninger | ELECTRICITY -Close fossil fuel plants in Disadvantaged Communities and financially support a just transition. The phase-out of fossil fuel plants in disadvantaged areas must consider the potential financial impacts on the local economy. Financial support must be provided to communities to ensure that reducing fossil fuel usage does not lead to significant unemployment or financial burdens. -Require fossil fuel companies to bear full responsibility for cleanup of polluted sites. Fossil fuel companies must bear responsibility for remediating any damage caused to the local environment, as they are the actors who necessitated clean up. The burden for site remediation should not fall on public funds and/or entities. -Ban construction of fossil fuel facilities: NO NEW FOSSIL FUELS. To achieve the goal of retiring fossil fuel facilities and reducing fossil fuel dependency, it is of paramount importance that no new fossil fuel infrastructure is constructed. Funds should go towards expanding renewable capacity, assisting disadvantaged communities, and investing in energy storage. -Set clear and rapid targets for ending fossil fuel generation. Tangible, specific, and clearly articulated targets for ending fossil fuel generation must be established and evaluated to ensure adherence to climate goals. -Establish incentives for small-scale distributed solar and storage. Incentives for solar and storage on a rooftop scale are essential, since introducing smaller scale solar and storage will effectively integrate more renewable resources into communities and reduce reliance on polluting power plants. | ||
| Marly,Medard | |||
| Jae,Zimmermann | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the electricity sector, which accounts for 13% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, New York must rapidly end all fossil fuel development while investing in storage and renewable energy resources and prioritizing a clean energy transition for Disadvantaged Communities that have borne the brunt of fossil fuel pollution and economic hardship. I am particularly commenting to say that I believe the scoping plan must: - Require fossil fuel companies to bear full responsibility for cleanup of polluted sites. Fossil fuel companies must bear responsibility for remediating any damage caused to the local environment, as they are the actors who necessitated clean up. The burden for site remediation should not fall on public funds and/or entities. - Establish incentives for small-scale distributed solar and storage. Incentives for solar and storage on a rooftop scale are essential, since introducing smaller scale solar and storage will effectively integrate more renewable resources into communities and reduce reliance on polluting power plants. | ||
| CJ,Kelley | |||
| Eban,Goodstein | There is nothing more important for our future then NY State's global leadership to achieve the CLCPA goals. Thank you for receiving these comments. 1. End fossil fuel expansion. The state must not grant new gas permits, nor require that utilities provide customers with fossil fuel service. 2. Ban all fossil fuel equipment in new buildings. All-electric building codes should adhere to the draft scoping plan’s proposed 2024/2027 timeline or earlier, requiring all-electric new residential/mixed-use buildings by 2024 and all-electric standards for new commercial buildings by 2027. We must not lock in additional fossil fuel infrastructure for decades by postponing all-electric building codes any longer. 3. Ban new gas hookups. Ceasing the installation of gas hookups in new buildings is essential for phasing in more sustainable technologies. 4. Dedicate at least $1 billion per year to assist low to moderate income households with electrification. Not only does electrification significantly reduce household GHG emissions, it also results in substantial energy bill savings that could greatly benefit LMI households. 5. Accelerate fast-charger deployment across the state. New York can only achieve its Climate Act commitments if New Yorkers can get around the state reliably and emissions-free. New York must accelerate charger deployment to show that electric transportation will be dependable in every part of the state. 6. Achieve a fully-electric state fleet by 2030. New York must lead the way in adopting zero-emissions vehicles by accelerating its transition to a fully electric fleet by five years, committing to a zero-emissions fleet by 2030. 7. Address public transit beyond the New York City metro area to include expanded and electrified upstate transportation. I will comment on other sectors in another comment. | ||
| Melanie,Patapis | |||
| Vy,Nguyen | Bard College | Establish a carbon-tax scheme in addition to cap-and-trade while making sure the transition is just by incorporating means-tested voucher programs or subsidy to support low-income communities. | |
| CJ,Kelley | |||
| Julia,Gloninger | Transportation -Introduce a feebate for zero-emission vehicles. Since transportation emissions are so high, it is important to promote the use of electric vehicles. A feebate program for zero-emission vehicles would be a great way to incentivize the purchase of ZEVs and make them more affordable for LMI customers. Transportation is a constant in this world, thus it is necessary to create a feasible plan that tackles transportation head-on. -Make a comprehensive plan for developing fully electric, extensive, and accessible public transportation. New York must give heightened consideration to public transit systems within the state, which can help move more people with greater efficiency. We need full electrification of an expansive and physically accessible public transit system helping people connect to their work, their communities, and all New York State has to offer. -Address tri-state commuting in public transit plans by investing in rail and bus systems; divert funding away from road infrastructure. New York must consider community transportation needs by focusing on the larger tri-state area. New York brings in a lot of commuters, especially from New Jersey, and commuters should factor into the New York community. Commuters currently rely on single-occupancy vehicles, MTA, NJT, or coach buses into Port Authority, which are often unreliable and create a miserable commuting experience. New York must invest in public transit by improving user experience through increased frequency of service, more stop locations, and better communications, which will help reduce reliance on personal vehicles and thus reduce carbon emissions. | ||
| Jae,Zimmermann | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the transportation sector, which accounts for 28% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, New York must advance transportation electrification and the expansion of reliable, electric public transport options rapidly and equitably. In order to achieve these advances, I particularly request that the scoping plan address public transit beyond the New York City metro area to include expanded and electrified upstate transportation. The Climate Act offers us the opportunity to open doors for New Yorkers statewide. New York should develop a plan to expand and electrify public transportation to help upstate New York residents access economic, social, and cultural opportunities within their communities and across the state regardless of vehicle status. Electric buses in the Hudson Valley area would greatly reduce single-occupancy fossil fuel vehicles on the roads, which may also reduce wear and tear on the roads and decrease congestion. | ||
| Julia,Gloninger | Buildings -Dedicate at least $1 billion per year to assist low to moderate income households with electrification. Electrification upgrades can have high upfront costs so it is extremely important to dedicate public funding to support electrification for low to moderate income households. Not only does electrification significantly reduce household GHG emissions, it also results in substantial energy bill savings that could greatly benefit LMI households. -End fossil fuel expansion. The state must not grant new gas permits, nor require that utilities provide customers with fossil fuel service. New York must align utility regulations with stringent climate goals that achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. -Include the Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act (S.8198) to ensure equitable and affordable access to electricity for New York residents while necessarily aligning utility regulations with New York’s commitments under the Climate Act. | ||
| CJ,Kelley | Bard College Center for Environmental Policy | ||
| Vy,Nguyen | Bard College | Provide more efficient and affordable public transportation, such as a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) to reduce dependence on cars in areas outside of the city, especially areas around colleges and universities. | |
| Melanie,Patapis | |||
| Laurie,Husted | Bard College | Thank you for your work. Locally, at my college and in the community, I have been working on the huge issue of addressing refrigerants and am particularly interested in the next steps include 1) requiring leak detection in supermarkets to prevent powerful greenhouse gases from escaping into the atmosphere, 2) creating a cash-for-clunkers program to ensure refrigerants from old appliances are safely recovered at their end of life. It is important to establish dedicated funding for grocery stores in disadvantaged communities to meet these requirements, as well as fully fund DEC resources to oversee and implement this requirement. I understand to be successful the final Scoping Plan must include a price on carbon, and recommend using a fee and dividend structure to effectively internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions across sectors. It is most fair for a carbon price to start low and gradually rise each year, and must apply to all sectors of the economy. New York’s current strategy, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), only prices the electricity sector and impedes the electrification of buildings and transit. | |
| CJ,Kelley | |||
| Calida,Howell | If we adopt all of the sector-based strategies within the draft scoping plan, we will still fall short of New York’s commitments unless New York implements an economy-wide strategy to make up the shortfall. The Scoping Plan asks for public input on such strategies which must be designed to avoid burdening low- to moderate-income households and Disadvantaged Communities. The Scoping Plan must: -- Price carbon, using a fee and dividend structure to effectively internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions across sectors. It is most fair for a carbon price to start low and gradually rise each year, and must apply to all sectors of the economy. New York’s current strategy, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), only prices the electricity sector and impedes the electrification of buildings and transit. -- Adhere to the most extreme greenhouse gas reduction scenario (Scenario 4) in the draft scoping plan. A scenario that gambles our livable futures away through reliance on highly uncertain “negative emissions technologies” and anything less than rapid and complete decarbonization of all emitting sectors acts in direct disservice to all New Yorkers. | ||
| Jae,Zimmermann | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on New York’s draft scoping plan to achieve the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. I am grateful to the work of the Climate Action Council on creating this document, which includes many strong steps towards addressing climate change and places New York as a leader on climate. To address the building sector, which accounts for 32% of New York State’s emissions, New York must rapidly adopt standards for NO NEW FOSSIL FUELS in buildings and strengthen assistance programs, especially for low-to-moderate income (LMI) households and those in Disadvantaged Communities, to electrify and receive the benefits of cleaner air that occur when we stop combusting fossil fuels. To ensure a livable future for all New York residents, I particularly request that the scoping plan dedicate at least $1 billion per year to assist low to moderate income households with electrification. Electrification upgrades can have high upfront costs so it is extremely important to dedicate public funding to support electrification for low to moderate income households. Not only does electrification significantly reduce household GHG emissions, it also results in substantial energy bill savings that could greatly benefit LMI households. | ||
| CJ,Kelley | Bard College Center for Environmental Policy | ||
| Thomas,Brannen | Accelerate fast-charger deployment across the state. New York can only achieve its Climate Act commitments if New Yorkers can get around the state reliably and emissions-free. New York must accelerate charger deployment to show that electric transportation will be dependable in every part of the state. A lot of hesitancy from the public sector to switching to EV’s is the lack of charging stations. Prioritizing availability of charging stations will lead to a larger shift towards EV’s. | ||
| Christina,Carrero | Ban all fossil fuel equipment in new buildings. All-electric building codes should adhere to the draft scoping plan’s proposed 2024/2027 timeline or earlier, requiring all-electric new residential/mixed-use buildings by 2024 and all-electric standards for new commercial buildings by 2027. We must not lock in additional fossil fuel infrastructure for decades by postponing all-electric building codes any longer. Ban new gas hookups. Ceasing the installation of gas hookups in new buildings is essential for phasing in more sustainable technologies. According to Earthjustice, 70% of New York City’s natural gas emissions stem from buildings. Implement all-electric appliance standards. Electric appliance standards should be accompanied by financial assistance for LMI households to increase affordability. Dedicate at least $1 billion per year to assist low to moderate income households with electrification. Electrification upgrades can have high upfront costs so it is extremely important to dedicate public funding to support electrification for low to moderate income households. Not only does electrification significantly reduce household GHG emissions, it also results in substantial energy bill savings that could greatly benefit LMI households. Prohibit state and utility marketing of fossil fuels. New York and its utilities must serve the interests of New York residents by ceasing to promote fossil fuels. Marketing should instead focus on necessary electric technologies such as ground- and air-source heat pumps that will keep New Yorkers reliably warm through the winter without harming our climate and livelihoods. End fossil fuel expansion. The state must not grant new gas permits, nor require that utilities provide customers with fossil fuel service. New York must align utility regulations with stringent climate goals that achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. | ||
| Thomas,Brannen | Ban all fossil fuel equipment in new buildings. All-electric building codes should adhere to the draft scoping plan’s proposed 2024/2027 timeline or earlier, requiring all-electric new residential/mixed-use buildings by 2024 and all-electric standards for new commercial buildings by 2027. We must not lock in additional fossil fuel infrastructure for decades by postponing all-electric building codes any longer. | ||
| Judith,Hoffmann | Thank you for realizing that the time is now to decarbonize our economy. Immediately or sooner, as my mother used to say. Thank you for stopping fracking in NY state. Thank you for the Adirondack Park. Thank you for hanging in there despite the overblown estimates of costs to switch to renewables, and despite shortsighted people who still think money and power are everything, even at the cost of our children's future. I wouldn't have come onto this sight to comment except that I got another postcard against it from my assemblyman Phil Palmesano telling me it would cost me 35,000. My electricity comes from a solar wind farm, and I do everything I can to reduce my consumption of fuel. I support whatever measures can get us there the quickest. I was part of the planting 2000 trees in 2000 as part of the NY Nursery & Landscape Association. Wha can I do now to help get this done? Really, let me know. Judy Hoffmann | ||
| Caty,Fortin | I am writing to ask for and stress the need to prioritize the most vulnerable in terms of climate change and its environmental impacts - low-income, elderly, ill, and BiPOC communities - at the center of your planning. The impacts of rising heat and flooding disproportionately harm these communities, and their input is invaluable for adapting to these problems. In addition, doing this kind of work, undertaking plan, if it is done with the most vulnerable in mind it will benefit everyone, rather than just more privileged communities. Communities meetings, advisory councils, direction connections to community leaders, all of these methods can serve you and your plan, and have the best impact in New York State. | ||
| Rajvi,Shah | Pratt Institute | Transitioning of NYC’s Polluting Peaker Plants to Renewable Energy Sources like Solar and Wind In order to respond to ever increasing demand in electricity, highly polluting power plants known as ‘peaker power plants’ run in communities of color like South Bronx, Sunset Park, Mott Haven and throughout other parts of the city. Overall, three quarters of a million people in New York City live within a mile of one of these peaker plants, with about 78% either low income or people of color. These inefficient peakers spew harmful emissions into neighborhoods already overburdened by pollution, exacerbating widespread health problems. According to the New York Public Service Commission, peaker plants around the city emit twice as much as carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than regular power plants and 20 times as much as nitrogen oxide responsible for high rates of respiratory illnesses like asthma, heart disease, and cancer. Most of these fossil fuel peaker plants are very old, some dating back to the 1950s, and many have been operating in the city for decades without any modern pollution control equipment. Some plants run on highly polluting fuels like kerosene or oil, at least part of the time. Peaker plants are a prime example of how low-income communities and communities of color bear the brunt of a host of energy and industrial infrastructure that poses significant public health and environmental hazards. Solution: Replacing peaker plants with renewable energy sources like solar power and offshore wind which can help reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, lessen electricity bills, improve equity and public health and make the grid more resilient in the face of increased storms and climate impacts. The need to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy has never been more evident in this era of climate change. With strong leadership of city and state government, NewYork can be at the forefront of achieving its roadmap towards carbon neutrality. | |
| Amy,Posner | - Select - | This is my letter as it was published in Newsday on April 19, 2022: Federal funding for electric car charging stations will give a major boost to New York’s own push to get electric vehicles on the road ["NY auto show dominated by electric vehicles," LI Business, April 14]. Both are overdue. Here in New York, the Climate Action Council Scoping Plan, charged with making sure the emission reduction goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, is boldly dedicating $1 billion for EV infrastructure. It has other EV work to do: barriers to adoption of EVs must be lowered in disadvantaged communities and barriers to direct sales of EVs by EV-only makers such as Tesla, which have had sales locations artificially restricted, must be eliminated. Ubiquitous, efficient charging stations will make it easy to make your next car an EV. | |
| Amanda,Hollmer | I disagree with forcing home owners to switch to all electric at any point in the near future. Until NY State develops strategies to make the cost of electricity more affordable many home owners simply cannot afford this. We have upgraded every light to LED or smart LED, smart thermostat, energy star appliances etc. and yet somehow our budget plan for electric is still $231 a month. We already pay more in taxes than our actual mortgage. If this plan goes forward we will be forced to leave New York State. At the current Electric Rates we would not be able to afford to heat our home. The grid must also be able to sustain the added demand. Solar which is something we would very much like to incorporate into our home, but it needs to be much more affordable because at its current price I would be dead before we recouped the investment. You also have to look at the materials used in wind mills, solar panels and electric batteries, the planetary affects from using these materials or mining substances like lithium for use in these materials and proper waste disposal of them. Currently broken windmills are buried in the ground and do not break down. If you provide incentives to phase out gas or you actively phase it out altogether, you then have to deal with the masses of useless appliances and vehicles. How is all of this being disposed of? Your plan mentions hurricanes and the grid. This is another area that needs further thought. If it currently takes weeks to months to recover from hurricanes what will happen when we are 100% reliant on electricity | ||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Switching from natural gas to all electric is an absurd notion, and those promoting will not be held accountable for it's failure. My natural gas is 5000CF/month = 5,140,000btu/month. 5,140,000btu/month = 1,506KWh/month. My electric usage 200KWh + 1,506KWh = 1,700KWh/month..at $0.20 = $340.00 monthly power bill. $340 x12 = $4,080 unaffordable! Analysis not include cost to convert to all electric appliances. I'm totally disgusted with the utter stupidity of NYS Democrats | |
| Annalena,Davis | The Climate Action Scoping Plan is great and exactly as aggressive as it should be. Switching to heating homes using electricity instead of gas is a key part of this. As a homeowner, I'd love to see continued incentives to insulate my home and install heat pumps. I'd also love to see homeowners who completely switch everything to electric be able to stop paying for gas infrastructure on their energy bills. And definitely deny new gas infrastructure permits. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Luna,Oiwa | The Climate Act commits New York to reducing GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels, by 2030. Although the NYS Climate Action Plan addresses emissions directly attributed with energy use at great length, it fails to adequately address the reduction of emissions resulting from the extraction, transportation, manufacturing, etc., of building materials (embodied carbon). This is an issue because these "embodied carbon" emissions make up about a quarter of the emissions that the building sector is responsible for. One of the most intuitive and impactful ways in which these emissions can be reduced is through the reuse of building materials that are currently already in the building stock, in place of landfilling and extracting/manufacturing anew. Reuse not only reduces emissions, but also reduces air, land, water pollution at demolition sites and in areas with landfills. Recommendations: 1) Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, increasing to 80% by 2030. • Require a per ton surcharge on all waste • Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot programs. 2) Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. • Adopt codes for new construction that enable the incorporation of reused materials. • Support workforce training of green jobs, with deconstruction as an important component. • Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. • Provide financial support to municipalities/counties for the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges. 3) Develop plans to divert concrete and asphalt, CCD’s two largest components, from waste streams. • Support research, facilities, and programs that focus on the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt shingles, gypsum (drywall) and masonry. | ||
| Jennifer,Rice | I am an ally to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy who governs their Territories and citizens according to the Great Law of Peace. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy are sovereign Nations with political, cultural, and religious agency over their ancestral homelands that is New York State. The NYS Climate Council have excluded them from the most pivotal legislation on climate change ever. This is a violation of their treaty rights and human rights. To redress: I ask the NYS Climate Council create an stand-alone working group to establish a state to Nation partnership: 1) Where Indigenous representation is chosen by the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora Nations respectively; 2) To ensure their political status is not supplanted under a racial group categorization, and 3) To radically challenge the NYS Climate Act Scoping Plan in its integrity and motive regarding Indigenous people, which fundamentally affects marginalized communities. | ||
| Andrew,Krawczyk | I do not support this plan. The cost to the middle class and fixed income residents is much too high. Availability of electricity and improved infrastructure to achieve this does not exist and would take much longer to achieve that this plan indicates. The waste generated by producing batteries and disposing of them is not adequately considered. The cost to enter the electric vehicle market is great and the worth of the vehicles will depreciate due to the short lifespan and cost to replace of the existing battery technology. | ||
| Ben,Beckley | I attended the first two hours of Tuesday's meeting in Brooklyn, and though I wasn't given time to deliver my prepared remarks (despite signing up in advance), I was deeply inspired by the passion and highly informed arguments of those who did. I've been a resident of NYC for nearly twenty years now, and in that time I've seen an escalation of climate-related disasters, and an escalating response from climate activists to match. I attended yesterday's meeting not only as a concerned citizen and a Sierra Club volunteer, but as a soon-to-be parent. My wife and I are expecting our first child this September. The decision about whether to bring a child into this world, at a time when the United Nations warns us that humanity is at "Code Red," was difficult and painful. It was in part the existence of the CLCPA, and our hope that New York will follow through with the urgency and ambition this moment requires, that gave us the confidence that there was hope left not only for us, but for our children's generation. (It's why we canvassed in 2018 for a state senate candidate who supported robust environmental legislation, against one who opposed it.) With that in mind, and with the knowledge that buildings are the single largest source of emissions in New York, here is what my wife and I are asking from the Council. We're asking that by 2024, when our daughter turns 2, that the state follow NYC in mandating all-electric new building construction. We're asking that by 2030, when our daughter turns 8, that the state commit to 2 million retrofitted homes. We're asking that by the year our daughter turns 18, in 2014, NY commit to a zero emissions grid. We're asking that by 2050, when our daughter turns 28, that NY commit to a clean economy. The outlook for our daughter's generation is grim, but it is not yet hopeless. We are counting on the Council to act with the boldness and urgency this moment requires. | ||
| Jennifer,Rice | I am an ally to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy who governs their Territories and citizens according to the Great Law of Peace. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy are sovereign Nations with political, cultural, and religious agency over their ancestral homelands that is New York State. The NYS Climate Council have excluded them from the most pivotal legislation on climate change ever. This is a violation of their treaty rights and human rights. To redress: I ask the NYS Climate Council create an stand-alone working group to establish a state to Nation partnership: 1) Where Indigenous representation is chosen by the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora Nations respectively; 2) To ensure their political status is not supplanted under a racial group categorization, and 3) To radically challenge the NYS Climate Act Scoping Plan in its integrity and motive regarding Indigenous people, which fundamentally affects marginalized communities. Please see attached letter. This principle is embedded in U.S. law and explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari in 1977. This is the law of the land. As was thoroughly explained by the U.S. Supreme Court…, Tribes are governmental entities, not racial groups. As such, Congress may enact legislation, and executive branch agencies may implement policy, that is unique to Indian peoples without violating the requirement of equal protection of the law, when such legislation or policies are reasonable and rationally designed to further tribal self-government. 417 U.S. at 555. This remains the governing. The holding of Mancari indicated that the relationship of Indigenous people to the federal government was political, not racial.” - Indian Law Resource Center The Scoping Plan failed to acknowledge the Haudenosaunee, but otherwise refers to them in a general acronym for people of color. The Haudenosaunee have governing power and ecological intelligence that reaches f | ||
| Lissa,Sangree-Calabrese | Investing in climate education for K-12 is absolutely essential to any climate planning and green transition plan as knowledge is the first step towards action. In order to encourage further public engagement with sustainability, the state must first invest time and recourses into creating folks who are climate literate. The value of this education is already recognized in other states, including New Jersey, and in order to keep our climate legislation relevant, competitive, and effective it is extremely important that we keep pace. Young people are already crying out for increased education and access to climate resources, it is the states responsibility to keep pace with this demand and provide resources to help young folks grow into green careers and to support sustainable futures. | ||
| Iona,Lutey | Thank you to all you leaders who are thoughtfully and inclusively putting together this critically important plan. I especially want to thank you for including economy-wide elements in the plan. Research has consistently shown that it will take economy-wide measures to make the necessary shifts to truly reduce our emissions at the scale necessary to meaningfully address the problem. I am also convinced that a straightforward fee on carbon would be the simplest, most effective and efficient mechanism to employ. One of the key elements I love about a fee on carbon at the source, is that it would instantly, with minimum bureaucracy, impact all use of fossil fuels in the state - and, critically, not just in the electricity sector. I love a predictable, steadily increasing price, which would begin work on day one because individuals and businesses would begin to make decisions that reflect the ultimate price. They would have the certainty needed for planning, and also time to adjust. But the price needs to be seen by everyone - be transparent - to influence their behavior, which is why I don’t believe that setting caps on emissions is the way to go. And since the resultant costs from trading permits are not predictable, energy users won’t be able to plan as clearly as they will with an anticipated escalating price. New York wants to be a business-friendly state - lets make this as workable as possible for businesses. A key element to a carbon fee is that most of the money must go back to households. It is a key equity and durability issue. Energy costs will go up for everyone, but we don’t want to solve this problem on the backs of those least able to afford it. Send the bulk of the revenue back to the people. This will be all the more important when the carbon price gets high enough to take us to carbon neutrality. The only way New Yorkers will be able to tolerate the transition is if they get some relief in the form of a monthly carbon cash-back payment. | ||
| Laura E.,Arney | Owned a fully electric car (Volt) for 3 years. Had not trouble operating. But refueling was not possible on longeer trips. Some Plug facilities were not working, locations few and far between, and took too long to charge to get much range. Would be great for commuters people. Down side is no noise to war n pedestrians. I am disturbed by solar grids on airable tillable land, tho good for farm subsidy. Could use land underneath for grazing sheep, etc. Could allow to be revocable set-aside for wildlife or other duel purpose. Could put solar stands on highway medians or bicycle trails. I had recent train travel to from Rochester to Boston. Great experience, would like more rails, dedicated passenger tracks and connections to more cities. Trains have opportunity to move about, have larger seat footprint and good bathrooms. My son in UK loves to take train trips. | ||
| Diane,Kilbury | I do believe that we all should strive to be energy efficient and use clean, renewable energy when possible. That being said, I think that forcing gas heated property owners to retrofit to another form of heating will financially hurt many people. This rule has to be adjusted so it doesn't bankrupt individuals when their gas supplied furnaces die. I also think that that making no gas powered car sales by 2035 will hurt many upstate people. I think that we should all protect our natural resources and environments. This law needs to be modified so it doesn't cripple families. | ||
| Thomas,Perry | NOT IN FAVOR. THIS PLAN WOULD PUT AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN AND FINANCIAL COSTS ON MOST UPSTATE PEOPLE TO INCLUDE ME. VOTE NO. | ||
| Lucia,Terry | New York is unfortunately not doing enough to ensure a carbon neutral future for our children. Commitments have been made but not kept to expand green spaces and move buildings off of gas power. I understand the obstacles presented in labor and consumer willingness to switch, however the consequences far outweigh the cost. Please consider this; we have know the science behind climate change for decades, and now understand that private companies control leadership around the country to protect their fossil fuel earning potential. The people will not tolerate this dynamic for much longer, as we have already seen a civic dissent beginning decades ago, and resurfacing now under a blanket of protests. Will you not respond to civil unrest? Will you not consider the future of energy if the people are not heard? Will you not change the system to prevent danger and threats to national security? Please enforce these commitments with legislation. Please cut ties with the fossil fuel industry. Please create jobs in the environmental sector. Please restore the beauty of this now disgusting planet. Thank you, Lucia Terry | ||
| Katherine ,Gale | I totally support the CAC’s draft Scoping Plan. Sen. Dan Stec please note. The time is now! | ||
| Sandeep,Dudhwewala | |||
| Dale,French | French | As a natural gas planning engineer in the early 70's I did a climate study. Because of the frigid temperatures of the 60's and early 70's my company could not guarantee natural gas supplies if the cooling trend continued. My study concluded that temperatures were going to start warming in the mid 70's and continue warming to early into the 2,000's. A European university, using ice core samples from Greenland, did a study at about the same time coming up with a similar prediction. Neither of these studies used vehicle emissions or cow belches, just historical temperature records were used. Regardless of what the climate is now doing and regardless of what is causing it there is nothing that New York state can do that is going to make any difference. However making fossil fuels very expensive and even unavailable will destroy the economy of the state. As a small example we have a diesel tractor for farming and logging. We have a gas powered saw mill, small dump truck and various other vehicles, mowers, tillers, chainsaws, etc. We are just finishing a 30' x100' high tunnel that will require heat at times. We just can't go out and replace thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Most agriculture operations barely survive as it is. There is nothing in the proposed climate plan that even remotely can be considered 'farm friendly'. The proposed fossil fuel restrictions will destroy agriculture including vineyards, logging, trucking, most construction, etc. | |
| Susan,Augenbraun | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Scoping Plan. I appreciate the Plan's focus on energy storage and on improving our electrical distribution system. Because New York is committed to climate leadership through the CLCPA, the electricity needs in the state will increase as we electrify everything from our buildings to our school buses. Electricity, and storage of energy to generate said electricity, is thus a key component of our climate transition. A revised plan should take into account the fact that untried solutions, such as hydrogen and renewable natural gas, are enormously expensive and only narrowly applicable. The Draft Scoping Plan should instead focus on wind, solar, battery storage, and efficiency—all solutions to New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions. | ||
| Douglas,Milliken | I sent the following to [email protected] by email last week, did not receive an acknowledgement. Trying again with the webform, it also was broken last week... I'm an engineer and understand the benefits of ground-source heat pumps, and I'm very much in favor of CO2 reduction. However there is a MAJOR cost problem with the last part of this sentence from Chapter 12: > GSHPs perform well in extreme temperatures without the need for electric resistance or fuel back-up since heat is exchanged between the building and fairly stable ground temperatures via an underground piping system. The problem: my house is on rock ledge. My lawn has between 4 and 6 inches of soil above large rocks/bedrock. This was demonstrated when the street water main was replaced two years ago--several hundred feet of rock drilling to complete the installation in front of my house (and a few neighbors) took a couple of weeks with giant excavators. The cost to install piping for a GSHP for my house (and my near neighbors), with rock drilling, will far exceed cost estimates in the current Draft Scoping Plan. Please change the end of the sentence above to read: > ... underground piping system when soil/rock conditions permit. I don't believe that an air-source heat pump makes sense in our Buffalo climate, the backup would be running much of the winter, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Conclusion: There needs to be an exception for cases like mine, to allow me to replace a gas boiler (hot water heat) with a high efficiency gas boiler...when the time comes that my current boiler fails. Thank you for your consideration. | ||
| Timothy,McLaughlin | Let's strengthen NYS's commitment to clean, renewable energy by ending its reliance on fossil fuel plants. No new FF plants, and ensure current plants are closed responsibly. | ||
| Deborah,Roeske | Requiring the use of heat pumps for buildings in NY seems like a terrible idea. You're taking away our wood, natural gas, and regular electricity furnaces because they create too much pollution; yet we have to keep them installed for "back up" in cold weather - weather we *routinely* have in this state. Sounds like a big waste of money to me, to have both systems installed. Heat pumps circulate heat with the stable ground temperatures.... that don't reach 68 degrees, let alone the 75 degrees most people find comfortable? I suppose you'd like us all to wear hats indoors at 50-something degrees? You are trying to improve tracking and regulation of refrigerant recycling, because we're terrible about doing that properly; but now you want to add another appliance to every building that uses refrigerant? Heat pump technology needs to be improved significantly before this will become a publicly-visible "good idea." Encourage the improvement of the technology, and people will switch over naturally when it becomes cheaper, easier, more efficient, and less likely to fail in abnormally-cold weather. | ||
| Paul,Mazak | ZEV adoption, and early retirement of internal combustion vehicles by 2030, does not allow sufficient time for essential technologies to mature. More time is needed. Please do not prohibit gas appliance replacements. You will further increase the cost to reside in NY state. There are abundant natural gas deposits in NY and PA. | ||
| Jan,Schwartzberg | I wholeheartedly endorse and support the goals and strategies described in the CAC Draft Scoping Plan. Achieving deep decarbonization following an aggressive timeline is feasible and is essential by mid-century. As an HR professional in the building engineering sector, I can affirm the economic and social justice benefits of the Plan in terms of growth in job opportunities for people of all educational levels, skills, and experience. Further, the Plan opens up many opportunities for business growth for businesses of all sizes and stages from startups on. The plan captures the essence of transforming the climate crisis into a brilliant opportunity for New York. | ||
| Deborah,Roeske | Please do not include eliminating household natural gas appliances and furnaces in this plan. 1. There are many benefits to cooking with natural gas, otherwise restaurants would never use gas stoves. 2. We already risk brownouts and blackouts in the summer from over-use of A/C. Having natural gas furnaces lightens the winter electricity load - and far more people are at risk from freezing than from overheating. We should be increasing and stabilizing (and burying) the electricity grid before we start reducing natural gas use. 3. Since the natural gas pipelines run underground, they are rarely affected by weather - unlike electrical lines which are frequently affected by snow, ice, trees, wind, etc. Eliminating natural gas stoves & appliances in households will not have a measureable effect on our pollution, but WILL have a measureable impact on individual budgets and quality of life. When natural gas becomes consistently more expensive than electricity, individual households will switch on their own, without state regulation. Low-income households rarely get to move into new housing. New housing aimed at low income households is rarely built in Disadvantaged Communities. Those families that already can't afford to replace their stoves, won't replace them with newer more expensive electrical stoves. Electrification of gas cooking appliances will *not* reduce the risk of asthma in Disadvantaged Communities unless you *remove and replace, free of charge* all of the existing gas cooking appliances. Simply dealing with new appliances is not enough. Regarding fossil fuel-using vehicles, people will simply go out of state to purchase them. Electrical vehicles (EVs) are improving rapidly, but we are still a long way from being able to safely use them for cross-country travel, especially in rural areas; and many families will continue to want to use gasoline powered vehicles. | ||
| Michael ,O’Connor | We don’t have the infrastructure in our electrical grid to carry the load. The wind towers in the lake will destroy the ecosystem by dredging up all the pollutants that have been capped in the soil during their construction. The batteries are all toxic and cannot be recycled, not to mention mining the lithium destroys the land it is taken from. | ||
| Mary,Sangree | I am writing to encourage the addition of funding earmarked specifically the development and implementation of K-12 climate education. K-12 climate education is essential to building a strong, resilient, informed community and establishing New York as a climate leader. Climate education is necessary to achieving climate targets as students become full-fledged members of the workforce and voting population. Allocating funding specifically for K-12 climate education is necessary to mobilize the state population to commit to green transition. Distributing funding and resources for climate education will enable educators to more effectively communicate lessons and NY state’s leadership to the growing citizenry. Climate education is gaining momentum across the state and country. New York legislators already support interdisciplinary K-12 climate education because it is necessary for building a culture of preparedness; creating an appropriately skilled workforce for emerging sectors; enhancing civic engagement; building support for state climate policies; reaching emissions reductions goals; achieving climate resilience solutions; and addressing issues of climate justice, especially for communities of color and low income communities Climate education is necessary to maintain competitiveness. California and Washington have adopted legislation to improve climate literacy in their curricula and New Jersey has taken the step to incorporate climate education into its K-12 learning standards. Climate education is necessary to meet the demands of our youth for a livable future and political, social, and environmental empowerment and support for climate education is widespread across educators, students, and parents. Young people have a right to understand the state of the world they are inheriting. Investing in the next generation of New Yorkers is essential. I strongly urge the addition of K-12 climate education to the proposed law. | ||
| Evan,Lawrence | I fully support ending the extension of natural gas lines to new housing and replacing natural gas appliances with electrical appliances in older housing. Too much natural gas is wasted in things like always-on outdoor lights and pilot lights for fireplace inserts, which in my experience are hardly ever used. If we want to stop using fossil fuels, we need to stop building the infrastructure--now! I am concerned about disruptions to the electrical grid if gas goes away. I live in a rural area and brief power outages are frequent. As a matter of health and safety, there need to be improvements in grid resilience and power storage so nobody is left freezing in the dark when the grid goes down. | ||
| Karen,Wager | I just don’t understand.......you want to buy the elements used to make the batteries to store energy from China and other countries that don’t like us to make a product that can’t be recycled and has to be buried in the ground where I can leach all its deadly chemicals? What are you people thinking?? I wrote not to long ago about driving west on route 17 by Bath NY and there already was a pile of used/damaged blades from the wind mills that can’t be refurbished or recycled ! They have to bury these monsters! And next to the blades I believe is was used electric car batteries! Can’t recycle those either. Yes, they’ll be buried too. The maximum amount of protons to be converted to electrons is around 33%. Our best solar technology is around 26%. Close but sure won’t cover the demand! With computers in every corner of a house and office and the main frames needed to keep this world communicating far outweighs what they can produce by solar/wind. Not only that but the tons and tons of earth that has to be moved to mine the elements needed to produce the storage product needed. The Biden administration shut down the mining for copper and nickel in northern Minnesota so we have to purchase from other countries. This isn’t ‘self sustaining!’ We are and will be dependent on other countries to supply the products we need to make solar/wind power that isn't enough to sustain our state! You talk about climate change being the sole purpose for this plan but have you/they considered the amount of C02 being emitted for the mining, shipping and converting these ton and tons of raw materials into the products we will need? The miles and miles of biodiversity that will be destroyed searching for the rare elements needed to produce these? This is not the way to go about this. You think you stopping climate change but your killing the earth. Yours, Karen Wager | ||
| Kara,Gurl | Permanent Citizens Advisory Committ ee to the MTA | Good evening! I’m Kara Gurl, Research and Communications Associate at the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA, PCAC. Thank you for holding this hearing and for prioritizing public engagement as you develop the plan to implement the State’s climate goals. On Earth Day, MTA Chair Janno Lieber noted, “Transit is the antidote to climate change.” Earth Day should be every day, so as you develop your plans, public transit must be central to the state’s emission reduction goals. To help reach the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and at least 85 percent by 2050, reducing dependency on cars ? the source of a large portion of emissions ? is key. Investing in transit is the best way to do that. Drivers must be able to depend on trains and buses to get them where they need to go. The state is seeing an unprecedented influx of federal funding for infrastructure and transportation—along with unprecedented flexibility that allows them to “flex” federal highway funds for transit improvements. We urge you to prioritize using those funds for improving and enhancing transit, instead of expanding highways and car dependency. Buses should be a major part of the state’s climate plans. We saw during Hurricane Ida that even when our subways flooded and failed, buses were a lifeline for tens of thousands of riders. Buses are also a flexible and more affordable option for expanding service around the region, helping reduce car dependency by bringing transit to the communities that don’t currently have equitable access. Electric buses are key to reducing emissions, and the MTA is making great progress in electrifying its bus fleet across the five boroughs. Most importantly, we hope that you will prioritize increased funding for transit operations around the state as a key step towards achieving our climate goals. Here in the city and throughout the region, the MTA is already one of the greatest tools in the state’s emissions reduction toolbox. | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | I would like to praise the the Draft Scoping Plan for recognizing the need for improving our electrical transmission and distribution system. Upgrading our electricity transmission and distribution system to allow for the maximum use of renewable energy sources is crucial to this transformation in our electricity system. Flexibility, reliability, and affordability should be key considerations.The Scoping Plan also calls for transparency and public information regarding reliability. And it calls for prioritizing historically burdened communities when improving storm-hardening infrastructure. I'd like to note a project undertaken by the Brooklyn Public Library with the help of the NYC Fire Department. In four of its branch libraries, the BPL has or is in the process of installing rooftop solar paired with rooftop battery storage. Not only will this reduce the burden the library places on the electrical grid (especially in summer when its air conditioning make it a refuge for many people) but the battery storage serves as backup if electrical distribution is disrupted. During a blackout neighborhood people will be able to go to the library to charge their phones, for example. | |
| Virginia,Thomas | I am against the Scoping Plan. | ||
| John,O'Keefe | As a NYSDOT retiree, living in the Adirondack Park, it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford to live in NYS. High energy costs, high property taxes & fees, continue to chip away at this retirees ability to live here. I had been hoping to switch from propane heating, to much cheaper natural gas. This act wants to do away with this option. When I purchased my home in 1995, it had electric heat. I had to remove it, since no way a middle class homeowner could afford to heat this way. I was saddened to read praise for Climate Czar John Kerry. Really? A multi-millionaire, career politician, whose carbon footprint dwarfs ant average person by a factor of 100x, having multiple million dollar mansions, and yachts; who fly's around the world on private jets; he is held up as some kind of climate justice warrior? Really? Just to remind the drafters of this plan, who undoubtedly live in a city, that us folks who live in rural NY, we have to drive cars to live our day to day lives. We aren't going to have mass transit available. And who can afford an electric car? Oh, and how are we going to power all these electric cars and trucks? Does any sane person, who isn't a paid Environmental lobbyist, think renewable resources can provide all this power by 2035? And this plan rules out nuclear power, probably the best option to generate carbon free power! This document is a joke! Who exactly is finacing CAC? George Soros? Russia? Putin would love for the US to get out of the oil & gas business! So sad that once again, our NYS politicians are pandering to Lobbyists and not listening to the working class voters, who live and work here. | ||
| Terry,O'Connor | We need to be able to use firewood to heat our houses. Harvesting wood lots is a great way to manage the natural discharge of carbon in to the air. The electrical grid can not handle the change to total electric. Natural gas is a good and safe fuel. You are over controlling the upstate region and not helping all New York. | ||
| Steven,Noble | City of Kingston | ||
| Carl,Engle-Laird | Queens Climate Project | Hello, The time to transition to a fossil-fuel-free economy was long ago, and we have been running down the clock for too long. In order to secure a livable future, we must immediately take decisive action by fully funding CLCPA and giving it powers of enforcement so that it can effectively reshape our economy. We must avoid false solutions such as biomass or "clean gas". Wind, electricity, and solar are the future, not burning anything that releases carbon. We must immediately move to set up all new buildings with clean, non-fossil-fuel electric grids. The fossil fuel industry is increasingly desperate to sell us false alternatives. Fracking and fracked gas have no place in New York's economy. I was born in Oklahoma, and for the first 20 years of my life I never experienced an earthquake there. In the last ten years, due to the rampant fracking in the state, earthquakes have become a common experience. We must subject all fossil fuel solutions to extreme ecological review. We must also remove crypto from all future economic plans for New York's economy. The underlying assumptions behind cryptomining are overwhelmingly destructive to the environment, and if cryptomines are allowed to take over redundant fossil fuel power plants it will become truly impossible to reduce our carbon footprint. | |
| John ,Jovic | Local 12 heat and frost insulators | My name is John Jovic and I am the business manager of local 12 heat and frost insulators representing over 600 dedicated, hardworking, highly skilled union workers throughout nyc and Long Island. As an insulator, I am particularly pleased with your focus on efficiency and conservation. This is a plus for all, and which all New Yorkers will benefit. Additionally, the proposed plan also supports a number of initiatives which expand beyond the need for better insulation. We need a modernized grid, new transmission, more research and development, new power plants- and a new siting law to make newer plants a realty. We also need to upgrade existing plants to be cleaner and more efficient I am disappointed that the proposed plans calls for a complete ban on natural gas. New York should learn from past failures and avoid repeating past mistakes. Bad energy policies should be abandoned. The best approach is an “all of the above energy strategy” to facilitate a smooth transition to a clean energy system that is affordable and reliable We can start accomplishing climate goals with “incremental improvements” in heating and cooling to lead to “exponential benefits for energy consumers and the environment. Strengthening investments in mechanical insulation, a simple, measurable, affordable & timely approach will reduce energy use, create jobs, and protect the environment The real problem to solve is energy independence. As of today, New York is dependent on foreign power sources and is poised to become more reliant on expensive, imported power. The climate action council should prioritize making New York a hydrogen hub and work to upgrade instate energy infrastructure to put the interests of New Yorkers first. THE BOTTOM LINE IS ADOPTING AN “ALL OF THE ABOVE ENERGY STRATEGY” IS THE ONLY ROAD TO 100% RELIABLE RENEWABLE, CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE THANK YOU | |
| Richard,Simmons | DELAWARE COUNTY | I have lived in NY for over 50 years. Three years ago I replaced my oil furnace with a propane furnace (at a cost of over $7000) to reduce my carbon footprint. Now you are telling me in 2030 I can't use my new furnace? If this goes through, I will be leaving NY - and not because of the winter weather.... | |
| Merry,Wokasien | I am writing in Response to the severe cutback proposed for the use of natural gas. I believe the country as a whole is aware of the climate issues and does not overuse any of the items using natural gas. Solar panels and wind turbines rely on wind and sun that are not always available. I believe that all of three ways to provide power should continue to work together to ensure reliability. We will do our part. We cannot so.ve the problem ourselves and need to be co set stove in our approach. Without countries such as China andI dia on board to take action, it makes no sense to be overly assertive as the goals will ever be attained. Conservative approach makes the most sense. thank you. | ||
| kate,chura | MONTAGUE St BID | Climate is critical - we must participate in the climate crisis | |
| FRANK,WROBLEWSKI | My dear farther would roll over in his grave if he knew what the democrat party has turned into! The WOKE, Liberal, Communist, mind set is the sadist thing that happened to me in my 75 years of life. I'm glad I'm not 20 years old and have to live thru the next 50 years. I ask my self why are the Dems doing this to America, that gave them the most wonderful country in the world. The White house staff, (not Biden), (he has dementia), is run by Soros and his STALIN ideas. Our only hope is Nov, when we true Americans try and fix what they ruined! GOD BLESS AMERICA | ||
| Sarah,Schoff | In your zeal to "go green", you are going to ruin this state. The average person cannot afford the changes you are proposing. If this plan is approved, we will join the thousands of New Yorker who have given up on the ruins you and your predecessor have made of the once wonderful state, and move to a friendlier, more affordable destination! Do NOT pass this legislation! | ||
| Rory,Panagotopulos | I have been commuting by bike on a daily basis for the past 12 years or so, and because of that I have become much more aware of the weather, and thus the urgency for climate action. Bike commuting goes a step further than EVs for personal transport as far as cost and emissions are concerned. While expansion of bike infrastructure over the years has made biking a safer option, bike lanes can’t help much with increased numbers of heat advisories, low air quality warnings, extreme winds, and mid day bomb cyclones. Unfortunately, even with uncompromising action, some of these extreme weather patterns are here to stay. So in my view it is already too late to be expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, not only for the sake of stopping catastrophe, but so that bike transportation can remain a viable alternative. Recently I had the unfortunate experience of moving from a building with curbside organics pickup, to a building without it. Having experienced the magic of seeing half of my trash turn into a useful product, I just couldn’t go back. So I now walk my food scraps a half mile to the nearest drop off location. Fortunately I am able to make that trip almost every weekend, but it really feels like a lack of access for my neighbors who may not be able to walk that far, or who don’t have the time available to take a half hour out of their weekend just to throw away some banana peels. I want to see an expansion of access to organics recycling so that more people can be a part of this process. And as the grandson of a union pipefitter, I feel it is paramount that jobs created from this plan be well paying jobs that can support a family and that consider impacted communities. I support the CLCPA Scenario 3. Thank you. | ||
| Cindy,McLaughlin | As a resident of Brooklyn who lives immediately adjacent to the BQE -- a polluting, crumbling highway -- my kids and I see, feel, and breathe the harmful effects of this road daily. At the same time, the triple cantilever section in Brooklyn Heights has been on the verge of collapse for decades. In light of these dual climate and public health emergencies, we have an opportunity to develop a ~10-15 year plan to decommission or bury the BQE (and of our other 1950s era urban highways like the FDR, XBX, etc.), forcing mode-switching to public transit for people; and a step-down of freight at the outskirts of the city to small electric box trucks and then again to e-cargo bikes and hand trucks in the neighborhoods. Its final state should revert our waterfront land to its cleanest, greenest, safest, healthiest, highest and best use (housing, parks, cultural, recreation) and delivering new tax dollars with more lucrative uses to shore up our city's coffers. | ||
| Carlo,Casa | New York Building Congress | ||
| Christina,Lincoln | I own an historic home in Buffalo and I work with low income homeowners on housing rehab projects. Without MAJOR incentives, rebates, and a large infrastructure investment to handle all of the extra load on our electrical grid, there is no way that I, working for a non-profit with a non-profit salary, and my low income homeowner clients will be able to comply with this initiative. We are working hard to make our own home as environmentally friendly as we can and we believe that any way to make our homes and environment more clean and healthy is the way we should all be headed. But when it comes to paying for heat or food, we'll be stuck. We are doing what we can and are headed in the same direction that you'd like us to, but there is no way to completely retrofit our home in eight short years with supply chains challenged and low wages and high prices here. We will be driven to bankruptcy or forced to move if this moves forward and we are not the only ones in this position. I think we need more time and more carrot- less stick- and we can make these goals over time. But this will force a hardship on families already struggling to survive. | ||
| Russell ,Talma | Eliminating natural gas as a heating/energy source seems unworkable in the proposed timeframes. The cost would also be astronomical. The transition should be incentivized to be gradual and free market. Currently electricity is far more expensive. The current electrical infrastructure in terms of generating and distribution is inadequate to supply all our energy needs. Electricity is more unreliable, power constantly goes out in periods of wind, ice and other storms while gas continues to flow. What will be done to lower kwh costs in WNY? Air source heatpumps are ineffective below freezing, forcing geothermal hvac installs at 10 times the cost of a gas furnace replacement. Bring the electrical cost down, reliability up and ensure adequate supply first. | ||
| Donald ,Meissner | What would be the alternative to natural gas and gasoline for home heat and cars. Electricity and Solar? If so, will it be an affordable solution for all New Yorkers? Is it possible to generate that much electricity and are the resources for the electricity any more environmentally friendly? I have read both sides of the argument on carbon emissions and climate cycles and am not convinced carbon emissions are causing so called climate change. Also most people who are not wealthy and depend on trade in value for their cars are going to find their gas powered vehicles worthless. If you want to find a way to drive even more New Yorkers out of New York State passing laws like this will do it. Finally, I have a feeling that somehow this law is less about climate change and more about Albany politicians lining their pockets again. We need political leaders that work for the people they represent and not for their own financial gain. If NY moves forward with these plans the people running the state will have the state all to themselves because no one will be able to afford to live here anymore. | ||
| Tammy,Wagner | These will be detrimental to all middle class in this county. When are you people that make these stupid decisions going to stop giving to the "entitled" more and more. The middle class can not take much more and heaven help the younger generation. They will not and can not stay in NYS. These silly laws you want to instate will cripple an already crumbling state. I do not and will not support any of these. | ||
| Julie,Wagner | Wagner | Seriously what are you smoking? Global Warming has been happening since the end of the Ice Age. We probably wouldn't be here without it. The only way to stop emissions from people is to get rid of all the people. Start with the New York State Democratic Politicians. They spew a lot of harmful emissions. Also, China and India are much worse offenders than New York State. Are you going to put giant corks in all of the active volcanos? Most households in New York State can NOT afford to change 100% to electric. I can't. There is not enough safe, reliable and affordable Green Energy to accomplish this plan anyway. I VOTE NO! | |
| Paul,Rath | This radical leftist energy social engineering under the guise of “climate change” will greatly exacerbate wealth inequality. It will definitely harm the poor and working class It will also further drive population flight from New York. We must keep multiple energy options available, including gas and nuclear | ||
| Gloria,Hudson | While the CAC intends to protect our environment, it does so at great cost to the average New Yorker. For the local citizens to shoulder the economic cost of converting from natural gas to electric will be unduly burdensome, causing many to consider relocating to another state. Furthermore, my friend who formerly worked for a local electric company deems this move short sighted. He says that NY currently does not produce enough electricity to handle the demand, let alone the future needs if this plan is fully adopted. Finally, I am fundamentally opposed to the government regulating so much of the energy sector. Rather than limiting energy options, New York should be incentivizing and growing our businesses that utilize our natural resources, including natural gas. | ||
| Jacob,Rieper | This entire plan is garbage and should be scrapped in it's entirety. | ||
| Russell,Miller | The CLCPA as enacted is untenable. The State will be unable to provide the required electric supply without the continued utilization of fossil fuels. The law as written will create widespread grid instability resulting in more frequent power outages negatively impacting quality of life in the State. The methods utilized this far take away citizens ability to make choices about which fuel sources they can utilize and should be considered a violation of personal freedom. The cost increase associated with forcing citizens into 100% electrification will cause great economic hardship, prevent growth and cause employers to leave the State creating even greater negative economic impact which will be disproportionately felt upstate. The positive environmental impact will be negligible if it can even be measured. Once again our representatives in Albany have put the desires of the few ahead of the needs of the many. Once citizens of NYS realize the negative economic impact this law causes the real troubles will begin (for Albany). | ||
| Charles,Symon | I believe the timeline for replacing gas/diesel vehicles is too narrow, before it is mandatory to buy/register a EV in NYS, the infrastructure needs to be BUILT FIRST, not after the fact. Adding additional registration fees, and mileage based fees will just drive residents out of state at a faster rate. Rushing to judgment will cause many hardships on the general public, and while there is good intention noted, the timeline is totally too aggressive. Consideration for the individual property tax payer also needs consideration. Mandating school districts in NYS to switch bus fleets to all electric will be a MAJOR burden on most residents. For example Beacon City School District has a fleet of 75 buses….replacing these over a 6 year period would cost the taxpayer in Beacon over 22 million dollars (based on current bus purchase estimates of $300,000 per bus), plus the addition of 75 level 3 chargers at their facility….where will all that electric come from….infrastructure is NOT there and I see no plan to increase the capacity in the next few years. In summary, more consideration needs to considered on how this all will be paid for, the general public CANNOT absorb much additional costs, direct or indirect. Personally if this is implemented I would seriously consider moving to another state and spend my NYS pension there as well. | ||
| Donna,Didas | |||
| Muhammad Rizky,Zein | Baruch College, The City University of New York | The CLCPA have made EPR a part of its scope under the Waste theme. However, the EPR scheme introduced in the CLCPA may potentially have an insignificant impact on promoting upstream design changes by producers. Current CLCPA scope tend to heavily focus on the financing aspect of waste collection, while, more importantly, it should prevent waste to be generated by emphasizing reduce and reuse principles. Reducing waste generation is one of the alternatives that would help New York State achieve its GHG emission reduction target while also alleviating the statewide landfills burden since significant statewide GHG emissions come from landfills. Moreover, after more than 30 years of EPR introduction, it has yielded very little change in the material composition, reparability, reusability, recyclability, and disposal impacts of products. Therefore, it is important to return to the original concept of EPR. Instead of focusing only on the end-of-life phase of the product's life cycle, it is more crucial to reduce waste through the earlier concept of EPR, or now often mentioned as Pre-market Producer Responsibility (PPR). PPR focus on the producer’s behavior change, to be more responsible and environmentally aware of the impact of making products, starting as early as the product design phase. Thus, it will push producers to create more durable and reusable, instead of more recyclable products. Some PPR-related proposed action items that might help achieving the state-wide GHG emissions target included: (1) regulations to provide information before producers placing their products on market, (2) take-back scheme, (3) incentivize reusable packaging in stores, (4) individual scheme using modulation fee, (5) pair fee with landfill tax, or other tax to make packaging more expensive. | |
| Ann ,Dooley | A Better Way + Coalition for the BQE T ransformation | The BQE corridor is in dire need of a complete reimagining. We can no longer prioritize cars over the long-term cost from climate change impacts on future generations. Diverting freight to rail and water, then greener and smaller last mile deliveries so no semi trucks are moving through city streets. Electric rapid buses in dedicated lanes on the BQE with tree-lined dividers from bike and pedestrian paths. More green spaces to cover the trenched sections and community spaces under the elevated sections. There's an incredible opportunity to greatly combat climate change by removing one of the biggest polluters in New York City. | |
| lynn,oles | I believe in climate change, the cleaner our planet is, the better. HOWEVER ---- We should develop clean energy when it is viable and affordable. China, India and Russia will continue to pollute the planet to a horrifying degree so it's irresponsible for New York and the USA to hurt our own economy in pursuit of a magical solution to warming which is not even possible. AGAIN --- We should develop clean energy when it's viable and affordable -- then we can change the laws to impose the clean technology. -- Isn't that sane and fair to We the People? I believe so - but the crazy warming zealots want to destroy the economy now. | ||
| George,Mayer | 1. The document should state that, as a matter of principal, no solar panels wind turbines or other generators of electricity that are produced by slave or forced labor (ex.Uyghurs in China) will be supported by New York State. Also countries such as China that use large amounts of coal plants to produce solar panes will be avoided 2. I cannot find a chart about how current electricity production will be replaced by green technology,Will there be sufficient electricity for residents during peek needs during the transition? 3.No mechanisms for fiscal oversight for both state agencies and not for profits is outlined. This is especially important for New York State. 4. No projections regarding proposed subsidies will be funded. Projections of tax rates? 5. Any relief for residents who are not identified as disadvantaged for electricity rates, home improvement and electric rates? Timelines to help decide to sell home or stay in state 6. It seems clear that the Agricultural section was written by the Department of Agriculture without any further analysis. The AEM system is managed by contractors employed by the farms themselves with little outside oversight. The areas within one mile of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (COFAs) should be considered environmentally distressed. Water and air pollution should be addressed. It would be best to stop government subsidies to dairy CAFOs and let market forces prevail. Do not encourage biogas at the expense of the animals that are exploited. 7. State how waste rare minerals used in solar panels etc. will be recycled. Any environmental standard regarding how rare minerals used in products imported to NY are mined? Thank you | ||
| Elaine,O'Brien | Queens Climate Project | The scoping plan must be stronger on gas. We need a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, clear deadlines for phasing out dirty energy and procuring renewables, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction, and a massive investment in getting existing homes off fossil fuels. We cannot solve this problem and meet our mandate without stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, from pipelines to power plants. No new fossil fuel burning plants, no new gas hookups. In addition, we must begin a massive investment in retro-fitting existing homes. We need 2 million NY homes retrofit for energy efficiency and electric heating and cooling by 2030, and a roadmap from the plan to make it happen. Retrofits will make our homes better, safer places to live (removing mold, lead, asbestos) as well as protecting our climate. These homes are owned an occupied by middle and working class New Yorkers, who need guidance and relief from the cost of going electric. The final scoping plan must set a 2024 deadline for all-electric new construction. It doesn’t make sense to build new gas-reliant buildings when we have the technology for electric heating, cooling, and cooking, and the gas distribution networks must be phased out anyways to meet our climate mandates. New Yorkers need Scenario 3 of the draft plan: Accelerated Electrification + limited combustion of alternative fuels | |
| Howard,Roeske | I do not want a ban on gas appliances for my home, specifically my ability to install a gas stove or grill. I am 100% for a focus on renewable energy, and pay extra to source my energy from a renewable plan. I’m interested in installing solar at my house. I’m aware of the studies on indoor air quality for gas stoves, and have proper ventilation installed. Please let this continue to be my choice. | ||
| Aki,Benjamin | The Veggie Nuggets | Hi! My name is Aki Benjamin, and I am in 7th grade. There have been many “solutions” proposed to help solve the climate crisis that do not actually work. An example of this is waste incineration. Waste incineration is a deeply harmful process that disproportionately affects people of color, and does much more harm than good. By burning waste, we are further contributing to climate change, as all the fuel it takes to burn this waste is released into the air and is harmful to the environment. Its harmful aspects disproportionately affect people of color, as many of these waste burning sites are in communities of color. This can make the air there more toxic to breathe, due to the chemicals and gasses in the air, so there will be a major health crisis brought on by a “solution” that doesn’t actually work. This is one of many false “solutions” proposed. This is why we demand proven technologies, such as solar and wind energy generators, to help us follow the agenda of the CLPCA. | |
| Lillian,Parrella | The Veggie Nuggets | Hello. My name is Lillian Parrella and I am in 7th grade. I am a concerned citizen that believes that we have to take action on climate change. We established the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act or CLCPA in 2019. It requires New York to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030. Greenhouse gasses currently go into the atmosphere, negatively affecting the ozone hole. If we reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, the pollution in the atmosphere will be reduced and the ozone hole will slow its growth. The CLCPA is a law, so treat it like one and reduce greenhouse gas emissions now! Thank you. | |
| John,Wadach | It is very clear that the negative impacts of climate change are severe Severely reducing methane and VOC emissions in oil and gas industries is critical I fully support the transition to all new ZEV by 2030 Smart growth is a very important component to reducing VMT 70% renewable electricity by 2030 is essential Focusing benefits to areas that have suffered most from pollution is to be applauded Creating new opportunities for displaced fossil fuel workers will blunt their opposition Manufactured items imported into NYS should meet our standards or be subject to a carbon tariff Excellent analysis of health benefits from eliminating combustion I hope that scenario #4 is adopted Curbing emissions from MHDV should be accelerated. Roadside DOT truck inspections should include emission testing Incentives should be offered to gasoline stations to install fast DC charging systems Require all new government vehicles to be ZEV immediately Shift resources from road construction to mass transit, bicycle lanes,and sidewalks Registration fees linked to miles driven is a great idea I fully support the plans to prohibit new natural gas services by 2024 and no new gas appliances by 2030 All construction materials should require embodied carbon labeling Facilitate distributed generation to decrease distance from generation to consumer Exploit car batteries for meeting peak demand Convert all electric meters to smart meters and implement time of day pricing for all Encourage diets low in animal products Add more funding for urban forests Put deposit of 10 cents on all containers Implement extended producer responsibility Implement carbon fee and dividend Prohibit all new fossil fuel infrastructure Make state aid to local governments dependent on local climate progress . Add more aid to address storm water flooding | ||
| Theresa,Stawasz | We cannot do enough to stem the effects of climate change. The potential $35,000 cited in the Palmesano mailer is minuscule compared to the cost of doing nothing and allowing climate change to go unchecked. I would like my grandchild to have a habitable planet. | ||
| bob,chyka | Climate justice ignores the fact that these "run for the bus" solutions -make it harder on the poor & ignoring natural gas is just plain panic. Reliance are a full blown nuclear option is ignored & this whole program has been given over to the climate panickers & I am totally convinced there are more reasonable alternatives! | ||
| David,Harris | Climate change is perhaps the current biggest threat to humanity, as such I fully support the state's climate plan and if anything would prefer something swifter and more comprehensive. | ||
| Geoffrey,Hack | Town of Holland | I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. This will drive more people out of New York, further hurting the our state! | |
| Tim,McLaughlin | Let's reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for our home heating and cooking needs. Gas burners are not only detrimental to a home's air quality, they also limit the options one has for where they get their energy for cooking. Electric stoves will give consumers options for what sources they get their energy from and also reduce the NOx, PM 2.5, etc., in their home. | ||
| Dana,Ellwood | Rochester Gas & Electric | I work for one of the electric and gas companies here in western New York , I have first hand knowledge of our grid and gas infrastructure. Our gas service is reliable , safe , and clean also affordable. The electric grid is 100 years old in areas , and has faults and burnouts at the rate we use now , adding heating of homes and businesses as well as charging ports for vehicles would overwhelm the system causing severe and prolonged outages. We are probably 40 years away from the technology to do what is expected now. Imagine having no heat or electricity for weeks during storm seasons ? Think before you act , gas and electric work hand in hand to supply all of our energy needs whether it be a city or rural community | |
| William,Wisnewski | Full disclosure, I've been a gas worker for 36 years, but I'm not going to speak to you as a gas worker, I'm going to speak to you as a homeowner. I want to be able to stay on Long Island, and hopefully my daughters also. The known costs of this plan seriously risk that, and the unknown costs only compound it. I ask everyone on this panel, and in this room, who buys a product or service, without knowing the costs up front? Because that's how this plan is presently layed out. Let's start with the 3 recently awarded windmill leases off of Long Island. The bids for the land alone are already at 6 billion dollars, and that does not include the costs of the windmills themselves. What are the additional costs for those? The cost for the upgraded electric transmission line infrastucture was recently estimated by Newsday to be at a minimum 1.5 billion dollars. And the same article stated no one can say what the impact for all of these are to ratepayers. Is it that no one can say, or no one is willing to say? Which is it? Lets not forget, Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, cost ratepayers 6 billion dollars, and the principle hasn't even started to be paid down yet, leading Long Islanders to pay some of the highest electric rates in the nation. We're adding the cost of at least 2 Shorehams to everyone's electric bill for the windmill generation and necessary transmission upgrades, and no one can tell us what the impact is to ratepayers? Where's the transparency? And that's just on the ratepayer side. For an individual homeowner, heat pumps cost between 30k to 50k per house. Many households will have to upgrade to a 200 amp service to handle the additional load. That, and the cost of an electrician to a run a 220v line for an electric stove, dryer, and hot water heater, that now utilize gas, will easily add another 15k to that bill. And how many homeowners and businesses installed natural gas generators after Hurricane Sandy when many were without lights for weeks? | ||
| Kevin,Foley | The impact of having all electric vehicles has not been fully vetted. All electric vehicles should not be mandated. | ||
| Tharon,Smart | The United States sits on a huge reserve of fossil fuels. Yet we import and pay way too high prices for fuels! what is the difference if we import and use it or mine it here and use it? DAAAA?! The Earth is in a change just as it has done for millions of years. Are you going to propose the use of Electric Airplanes (JETS)? They will not be able to be called JETS if you do stop using Jet Fuel and engines to power them!! Electric airplanes!? OOPS we cannot make our destination today our batteries are dead, please put on your parachutes and get ready to jump. REALLY?? Electric ships, submarines, battle ships, tractor trailers, space ships, cargo ships, etc. etc.???!!! The left is way out of control with everything they are doing! Tax paying Americans are paying the price. We were energy independent when Trump was President. Now we have the Biden era. Bring on the next election! | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | Hello, I would like to direct this comment to my concern with "false solutions" that are scattered throughout the Draft Scoping Plan. In the chapter on transportation, the Plan’s recommendations about the use of hydrogen and biofuels raises red flags. The Plan suggests that hard-to-decarbonize modes of transportation such as aviation and heavy trucks be encouraged to shift to lower carbon versions of fossil fuels. We’re mystified by what the Plan refers to as “renewable diesel” and “renewable jet fuel,” but assume this refers to blending biofuels into petroleum-based fuels. Biofuels bring their own problems, namely the extensive use of agricultural land for monocultures that feed no one, and the release of carbon dioxide when burned. Blending them with petroleum fuels simply somewhat lowers the emission of local air pollution and greenhouse gasses without eliminating them. “Green” hydrogen is not currently an option. It is currently too expensive to be marketable and its volatility would require building out extensive infrastructure to ensure safety. Moreover, producing it yields carbon dioxide so it needs to be paired with Carbon Capture and Storage, a technology that is not currently available at scale and at a marketable price. New York’s Clean Energy Standard must steer clear of both biofuels and hydrogen as a fuel. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | |
| Erich,Ely | Olin Corporation | ||
| Charles,Symon | While the goals of this Climate Action plan have merit, the lofty goals to achieve these are not well thought out. The goals of this action plan DO NOT realistically explain how “normal everyday” New Yorkers will actually pay for this. As a NYS public employment Retiree (along with over 665,000+ others), we currently are excluded from most programs that were created to purchase, install solar, purchase Electric Vehicles, install home charging systems due to the design of the Credits. NYS public employee pensions are not NYS Income taxed, this was established to keep NYS retirees from moving out of state, with most programs all incentives are tax credits…pay no taxes, get no credits. If this program is to move forward and incentives must be in the form of REBATES. Further, by stating that all home heating/cooling should be Heat pumps, I did not see anywhere in the plan how individuals (especially retirees) will be assisted in paying for these (must be grants with no income restriction, not low cost loans). I replaced my oil based heat a few years ago with a high efficiency heat pump at a cost of over $10,000 and using the NYSERDA rebate only received a $500 check….not an incentive to ever do it again! Today, my heating costs have skyrocketed since I use only electricity that has tripled in cost. What will be the outcome in 10 years when demand for electric increases due to electric vehicles charging overnight and the heat pumps churning through electricity? My bet is electric costs will increase dramatically with this plan. I also believe the timeline for replacing gas/diesel vehicles is too narrow, before it is mandatory to buy/register a EV in NYS, the infrastructure needs to be BUILT FIRST, not after the fact. Adding additional registration fees, and mileage based fees will just drive residents out of state at a faster rate. Rushing to judgment will cause many hardships on the general public, and while there is good intention, timeline is too short | ||
| Emily,Selinger | 350 Brooklyn | The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding warehouses to this recommendation. There are acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses in Brooklyn and elsewhere in the city and state. We need to be aggressive about expanding solar, using as many surfaces as we possibly can. Please consider any engineering adaptations that could be made so NY can add solar without threatening the integrity of the roofs. | |
| Emily,Selinger | 350 Brooklyn | The electricity chapter mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plants over time, but there should be a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants. Moreover, plant owners should be responsible for site remediation when plants are closed. Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, any new permits should specify that the extension of plant use will be temporary. The conditions of the new permit should also specify that the cost of such retrofitting will be the responsibility of the owner, not ratepayers, should the plant become a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. In addition, language in the Plan should make a stronger commitment to clean energy job training in every community where a plant closes. As a young person living in Brooklyn, I am terrified for my future and the future of this city, and it is extremely frustrating to watch the inaction of the government, time and time again. A firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants is one of the most important things that the state can do to protect our future. | |
| Cameron,Best | Endurant Energy | I work in the geothermal sector currently and wanted to share an observation about the NYC market, that I hope will be addressed in the CAC plan. In most NYC new construction projects, multifamily or commercial, are installing air-cooled VRF systems. In such a dense urban environment this seems like a real missed opportunity to not drive higher efficiencies into these projects via geothermal. In most of NYC, once a building is constructed the ground beneath it will be locked out of geothermal for decades to come. Long-term this will increase electrification costs, and ultimately refrigerant leaks from VRF systems may nullify the efficiency gains. Currently, air-cooled VRF is a stronger competitor than gas to geothermal, and the CAC should consider codes and procedures to encourage higher efficiency geothermal installations in NYC new construction. | |
| Kristine ,Ward | NO on Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan | ||
| Mark G,Rigsbee | To start I agree that we do need to work on improving our impact to climate and how it effects all aspects of our lives. I see this plan as very aggressive and at very high cost. At present for example the are very few charging stations for electric vehicles and the use of such vehicles for travel at present would not get anyone from New York to Georgia without adding at least 2-3 days of travel. also these cars according to some studies cost more to operate per mile and for us who live in a state where it is cold, the battery power and distance available decreases. Unless there ore major breakthroughs to increase the driving range to at leased twice the average of about 300 miles for most electric cars, I for one would never have use for a vehicle. Your plan calls for use of gas and sale of gas products such as ovens and heating to be restricted as early 2024 along with not allowing new hook ups, but who pays for the cost to the homeowner. I for one on a fixed income sure do not have the resources to be able to change to other systems to heat my home or run my whole house generator. Besides the gas mandates you also want people to use more public transportation, walk or bicycle. For many. of us we live in a very rural area and none of these work. In conclusion I feel that in a rush to come up with ways to help our environment, its not that the ideas are wrong but need to make sure that you are implementing sound ideas that will work and not rush to get plan into action without looking at all of the financial hardships for the every day person and or family. This really feels like it will become a large burden to all tax payers and many of us not able to financially make changes to our homes in order to comply. | ||
| Louise,Potter | I have great concerns about the conversion of residential heating and cooling, namely the timeline and the cost. The plan states: "2030: Adopt zero emission standards that prohibit gas/oil replacements (at end of useful life) of heating and cooling and hot water equipment for single-family homes and low-rise residential buildings with up to 49 housing units" There are many homes, especially in rural areas like the one I live in, that have hydronic systems (boiler and radiator systems) as their main heating source. These systems are not addressed in your plan at all. There are currently NO easy or cost-effective ways to convert these houses to electric systems. The plan does not lay out any financial incentives/help for people to make this conversion after their system is at the end of it's useful life. I am middle class, but with inflation I definitely could not front the cost of this conversion on my own and most of my community earns much less money than I do. The technology does not yet exist to make this conversion cheap or easy. If it did, I definitely would make the change and I know many of my community members would love to as well. WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO. You either need to extend the date, 2030 is too soon, or help provide financial incentives to make the switch. People will switch with minimal complaint when the option makes sense to do so. It does not make anywhere near financial sense to do so right now. You need to take the financial state of your constituents into consideration before passing standards like these, because they are punitive to the vast majority of people who are just barely able to make do right now. This includes MANY people who do not fall into the state's defined category of "low-income." You are setting up a situation where it will make even more financial sense to leave New York. I am a liberal environmentalist and I am fully behind lowering greenhouse emissions, but it needs to make sense and be realistic. | ||
| Mary,Borden | This is the most ludicrous plan I have ever heard in my life! You are setting New Yorkers up for destruction! There is no way that we can change everything to electric and afford it! You will destroy entire buissness! Households that are barley hanging on will be destroyed! And what happens when the electric grid goes down, as we saw many years ago? Stop this insanity! | ||
| timothy,sherer | • No new natural gas service to existing buildings starting in 2024; • No natural gas in newly constructed buildings beginning in 2024; • No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, or clothes drying beginning in 2030; • No gasoline automobile sales by 2035. -The above suggestions are absolutely insane! Who is going to pay for the increased costs to install the electric lines in buildings? -Who is going to pay for bigger electrical supply lines from utilities? -How is all the additional electricity going to be generated? -Heating with natural gas is very efficient, producing much less carbon than before-let the companies continue improving on that. WHY are NY residents the only ones being punished by this?..Don't say we're leading the way because the additional costs to NYS residents will make more people move out! If you haven't noticed we already pay the highest taxes in the nation. Here's an idea...see if you can get volunteers to do what you want to force everyone to do! Use median income families, maybe some of the tree huggers who want this, and make them pay for all the changes themselves! Or, see if you can build a development with these added restrictions and costs. Please delay this crap! Tim Sheer | ||
| Peter,Klees | So where in the world does a non elected Climate Action Council get to decide how I heat my house, cook my food, clean my clothes, and just about any other aspect of how I live my life? Your council is just pedaling a false narrative as how by doing any of the things you suggest are going to avert the climate change, that you still haven't proved. This insane plan is nothing but a power grab by insane people. Any politician that supports this insanity should be committed to the insane asylum along with this council. | ||
| Stephen,Hovey | Cutting natural gas might work in dense cities with decent electrical grids, but making blanket decisions like that that include rural and suburban areas is ridiculous and overly burdensome. The grid in the countryside can't bear the weight of home heating everyone currently living out here! And many of us simply cannot afford to replace our boilers and furnaces with electric. Electricity in the countyside is also not so reliable. It goes out all the time in winter because it is outside on poles. Gas is always there. It's underground and protected. You'll freeze us out! The soaring price of electricity doesn't help either. Something gets burned to make that electricity anyway.. why switch from clean gas to dirty coal or something, on the backs of the poor. You'll force many to burn wood, legally or not which is worse! There has to be a better, smoother way to achieve your goals. | ||
| ANITA,MENSAH | Baruch College | I have uploaded a file containing my comment on chapter 16 (waste) of the CLCPA | has attachment |
| ANITA,MENSAH | Baruch College | New York City Food Scrap Drop Off Programs initiative is gradually falling apart, and no one can see it. Food Scrap Drop Off Programs since their inception, have made substantial contributions to New York City’s fight against climate change and the City’s goal of zero waste in landfills. New York City’s Food Scrap Drop off programs initiative in recent happenings, find itself in a critical and insecure situation. The foundation of this unique environmental initiative is very shaky and no longer solid as it used to be due to the very harsh 2020 financial cuts and program suspensions meted out to this vital organic waste management initiative under the de Blasio administration. Although, the City’s food scrap drop off programs and composting are still recovering from the harsh treatments of thede Blasio administration and trying so hard to get back on their feet, the fact that the City’s current mayor is not particularly enthusiastic about composting poses a significant threat to these organic waste management programs. The Department of Sanitation (DSNY) in light of getting the City’s organic waste recycling programs back on their feet again, has recently reinstituted organic waste recycling programs like “SAFE Disposal Events, the NYC Compost Project Master Composter Certificate Course and the Zero Waste Building Maintenance Training Program” (New York City Department of Sanitation 2022, n.p). However, the big question is: will these organic waste programs continue to exist and even expand in the future without the mayor of the city, Mayor Eric Adam, not showing much interest and support for community composting? These organic waste products particularly food scraps in various households and across the city are collected in large quantities at various drop-off sites so that they can be recycled into compost – the city’s black gold. If Mayor Eric Adam continues to have less interest in composting, what then becomes of these community-based hosted food scrap | |
| Theresa,Fleig | While I am in full favor of aggressive climate-friendly policies, I would like the timing of any pre-existing systems being required to switch to electricity would be based on a requirement that 95% of all of our electricity was coming from somewhere other than fossil fuels at the time such a transition is required. I would also like to see some energy-efficiency requirements that would push builders toward highly efficient systems such as heat pumps as opposed to less efficient systems such as baseboard electric heat. Perhaps a combination of incentives plus penalties could be employed? Is there a system in place to assure that we are using non-fossil-fuel based electricity for all the required new electric systems? There should be. | ||
| Rebecca,Novick | Citizens' Climate Lobby | Thank you to the CAC, associated working groups, advisory panels, and agency staff who contributed to the development of the Climate Action Draft Scoping Plan. It solidifies our state’s commitment to mitigate climate change and contribute to a better future. Including the Economy-wide Strategies is an important addition to the draft plan in order to reach the CLCPA goals. Even full implementation of all of the initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations wouldn’t achieve the needed reduction targets. I propose that NY implement a mechanism to put a price on carbon, specifically a carbon fee and dividend. Economists and scientists agree that carbon pricing is the single most effective policy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and slow climate change. It would also complement many of the other recommended policies/programs in the Scoping Plan. The best carbon fee and dividend program places a fee at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state and distributes the revenue to low- and moderate-income households and businesses to help protect them from the increased prices of energy. The price of carbon should be reasonable and gradually increase each year to provide people and businesses enough time to transition to renewable energy sources. Carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than just the electricity sector. Without a price on carbon in other sectors like transportation and construction, electricity costs will be higher relative to fossil fuel-based energy costs, which would slow the adoption of sector-based recommendations like building electrification and zero emissions vehicles. Carbon pricing is preferred over the other proposed alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, making it better for individuals and businesses. I recommend that NYS adopt a carbon fee and dividend program to significantly reduce emissions and meet our climate goals. | |
| Daniel,Dickey | NY's climate is not conducive to full electric autos. It's too cold. Mileage per charge would decrease significantly in winter. As for moving to all electric appliances the cost to operate is much more than natural gas. I saw the country try this in the late seventies and saw people forced into replacing their electric with gas. Crazy. Time for new legislatures and a conservative governor. | ||
| Jim,Roush | Too expensive for the average family. Perhaps a better approach is to take the transition slower and displace fewer tax paying residents. | ||
| David,Tysiac | Moving away from fossil fuels may seem like a great idea but it is filled with issues that you have not properly addressed. I will articulate the problems with this plan but I’m aware that you don’t actually care about anything but your agenda. Since you consider yourselves globalists, you must realize that the procuring of the materials for solar and wind energy is destructive to the environment, the human slaves mining it and the Ozone. You must use fossil fuels and procure the materials from countries that do not follow EPA like protocols. There will be rolling blackouts because the electric system is not advanced enough and you will be unable to provide enough electricity which will cause insecurity of members of the state. The cost of energy will destroy the middle class. This is the ultimate goal anyways to have a ruling class and minions that serve them. Since everyone who isn’t in the ruling class will struggle for energy and food they will achieve equality as everyone is oppressed equally (What you call equity and Social Justice). Stop this rediculous plan now. | ||
| Phyllis,Howell | NO! NO! NO! We cannot afford this. We need to be able to heat our homes with natural gas and propane. Electricity is not dependable - we lose service about once every month, usually for a short time, but often for hours. We do not want to depend on electricity for everything in our home. If this plan is passed we will have to move out of New York State. It is already difficult enough with our high taxes, but this will make it unaffordable. We are senior citizens on a fixed income. Inflation is already killing us. WE DO NOT WANT THIS PLAN or anything like it! | ||
| Donald,Wolanin | none | I live in upstate New York where many people drive to work farms that have equipment that runs on gas and diesel products. I think your climate goals are not even close to being attainable with out hurting a lot of average hard working New Yorkers . It seems to me this push is based on politics and not science, I do believe that we need to slow pollution, but we need to do it with the average working citizen in mind, The electrical system we have in New York could not support all the electricity that will be need for your clean climate change and the cost that will be put on the average household will be to great. | |
| Nathaniel,Wetmore | I appreciate the directive to electrify New York, and I fully support it for reasons of carbon-emissions reductions and cost savings over the burning of fossil fuels for building heating purposes. I currently live in a building that was constructed around 1975, and I recently had the attic insulation upgraded from fiberglass batts at about R-11 to blown in cellulose at about R-60 as well as air sealing. My house is heated via electric-hydronic baseboards and a secondary ventless propane stove, and I have already seen the benefit in a reduction of heating load associated with the insulation improvement. My comment on the Draft scoping plan is that insulation of existing buildings should be at the very core of the climate act, and play a major role in our state's transition from fossil fuels to a more renewable energy future. Increasing the value of incentives for insulation improvements (NYSERDA's Comfort Home, for example) is an excellent way to promote this, as well as increasing the visibility of what insulation can do in terms of saving people money as well as saving the planet. Nobody likes to think about what's between their walls or in their attic, but it extremely important that we all do so. | ||
| Connor,Appleyard | Colgate University | This scoping plan is very thorough but there are a few things that I think could be improved. First, where they outline the impacts of climate change, they don’t mention anything about the specific areas in which New York is vulnerable and what the specific impacts on the state as a whole will be. I understand that they have a separate document for this but I think that including it in this could contextualize the plans and also allow them to understand the prioritization of the policies. Second, I think that there should be a more specific mention of what defines someone as vulnerable. The plan lists women, femmes, youth, and children as most vulnerable to the climate crisis as a whole. I think that there could be much better definitions and specifications on why certain groups of people are vulnerable to certain effects of climate change and especially people of low economic status. People of low economic status are listed as vulnerable to certain effects of climate change in the plan but I think that they should be more of a focus due to how many of these effects they are listed as vulnerable to. Showing which effects impact certain groups could even be in a table in section 2.2 where you could list the effects of climate change and who is likely to be most affected by them. It could also help to quantify the number of people who fall into these categories to give people an understanding of just how many people are vulnerable to these effects as a whole. One thing I think is great about the plan is how they list where funding is coming from for certain policies. This allows readers to see just how these plans will be implemented as funding typically serves as a roadblock to getting projects underway or getting a policy to be implemented. The last thing is that medical costs aren’t factored into the total costs of climate change which I think is a missed opportunity because of the health effects that are projected as a result of climate change. | |
| Celeste,Streeter | National Grid | Hello, My name is Celeste Streeter and I am here today to voice my concerns as both a National Grid customer and a National Grid employee. We all can agree that climate change is one of the biggest threats we face today and I strongly support the CAC’s commitment to lowering dangerous emissions to stop it. However, we have to make the right choices that supports safe, affordable and reliable energy to all customers. New York State’s Climate Law is amongst the most ambitious of the world. Their Draft Scoping Plan released in December is also very ambitious in favoring the use of electricity for heating and cooking in all homes and businesses across the state. This concerns me for several reasons: • It bans all gas appliances taking away my rights as a consumer to choose. • It seeks to decommission existing gas networks eliminating renewable natural gas and hydrogen as options for heating • It offers no plan to sustain the unprecedented level of NEW renewable electricity generation development required in the next 8 years. I think many of you can understand my sentiments of doubting the reliability of the EXISTING electrical grid during the summer amidst a heat wave, much less having confidence that my electricity will remain on with more than 3 times the current load. • It makes no assessment of customer cost. Working people like myself are fighting to stay above the rate of inflation and some of us are holding on by the skin of our teeth. Being forced to pay $30k-$40K to convert to all electrical appliances will make living in New York unaffordable. As a National Grid employee, my concern is that the CAC’s plan to eliminate the infrastructure of safe RNG and hydrogen will eliminate thousands of jobs. We cannot let clean energy transition undermine economic growth and put New Yorkers out of work. THERE IS A BETTER WAY! | |
| Carmella,Hoffman | Hoffman Dairy | after reading all the "changes" that will be taking place starting as early as 2024, I believe that we need to take a step back and for once think about the residents this is going to affect. We live in a home that was built in the early 1800's, and converting this place to all electric will be a HUGH burden on ourselves and our family who will take over the house when we pass. Also, we live in a RURAL area of NYS--we won't have access to "plug-ins" for our vehicles--and if the ruling covers farm machinery like it looks its going to, you are putting yet another HUGH BURDEN on the already burdened farmers to convert/change over to electric vehicles--not to mention having to install "charging stations" on the farm--and what about the farmers who are out in the field plowing/planting/harvesting when the battery decides to die--think about the impact on already high food costs--this will make food costs soar to unreachable levels. I understand the need to "stop climate change" but I'm not convinced that this is the way to do it--lets get back to doing recycling and things that aren't going to cost us all an arm and leg to do. Start thinking about the pockets of the people of NY, or you won't have a state to have to worry about--everyone will be leaving the state--it's already started based on our tax rates--now add "all electric" to it and we will be just a blank space on the map! | |
| John,Nyquist | Contrary to what Phil Parmesan thinks, the Draft Scoping Plan makes sense. Of course it will cost money, and a lot of it, but the cost will be much higher if we do not stop using fossil fuels asap. Shame on you Mr. Palmesano for using financial scare tactics without offering another plan to solve the problem. | ||
| Lorraine,Burrows | The concept of being carbon free is climate responsible, however, the plan and path to get there can not be forced without careful planning for people who live in rural areas and also face financial constraints. One power source is a dangerous model. It imposes and undue burden on personal choice for heating sources. Natural gas is source that needs to be allowed along with diesel generator usage. When weather impacts can cause power outages for hours and even days, these people could be put in a life threatening situation. Our family has worked in the nuclear power industry for almost 30 years. Which is a proven safe and no carbon emission source of power. The path to reduce carbon emissions must consider monetary subsidies to all people, as heat and power is a health and safety, life sustaining issue that impacts everyone. The poor, elderly, and other sub-groups can’t afford a power source change in their existing homes that would cost upward of $30,000. This would cause unnecessary impacts to the housing market driving house prices to the floor. Do not make New Yorkers out all of their eggs in one basket. When the basket drops and all the eggs are broke, then how will the government support everyone? Allow for choices. Allow for a sustainable transition plan. Not a drop dead date for submission/compliance. | ||
| Michael,Seitz | Hey Albany, can you look at what the cost and timing would be to have the electric grid in place to support your plan to eliminate gas supply. If you do your homework you may see that New York States current grid can not support the additional loads and where does electricity come from? Talk to some of the linemen in the field and they are shaking their heads when the gas company is capping off the gas lines to the rest stations on the NYS Thruway. How do I know this is because I have talked with them and you may want to do so. These ideas are all good on paper and to fire up the uninformed but as leaders you have to do your due diligence and then apply logic. I could not manage my home or a business in this fashion and I challenge NYS government to work for the people that go to their job every day don't have time or the resource for rallies or large donations to fund these wacky ideas. | ||
| Paul,Antonik | The draft plan over-estimates the benefits of the plan, and significantly under-estimates the costs, particularly in regards to the consumer. The cost of installing a cold climate air source heat pump (ASHP) will be approximately $10,000 over the cost of replacing an existing oil-burning furnace, and this does not include the cost of needing a backup heating system for northern New York climates. The six-year cost of an electric vehicle is more than $22,000 above that of a gasoline-powered vehicle, and that assumes the installation of the least expensive charging system, which will require several days to achieve a full charge. New York is already one of the most expensive places to live in the US, and this plan will make New York even less affordable. | ||
| Paul,Antonik | The draft scoping plan is far too aggressive in the push toward all electric vehicles (EVs) in the time period outlined. The range of EVs is about half that of gasoline-powered vehicles, which make them impractical for large parts of New York State. While fast charging stations are placed along major interstates, they are few and far between in rural upstate areas. The least expensive home charging stations (about $2000), only charge at a rate of 5 miles per hour of charge. That rate would not allow typical daily usage in the rural areas. Fast chargers are available, but are considerably more expensive. Apartment dwellers without their own dedicated charging stations will be particularly disadvantaged. Gasoline-powered vehicles should still be a choice until EV technology advances such that EVs are practical for every New Yorker. | ||
| Marsha,North | It is never a good idea to rely on one energy source. The nuclear plant outside of NYC that supplied dependable, reliable, affordable energy 24/7 has been shut down causing an increase in electric rates. Countries that rely heavily on renewables sources such as wind and solar to produce electricity, for example the UK and Germany, experience blackouts and the cost for their electricity has increased significantly and burdened their people. And they need natural gas to meet their energy needs. NYS already has high electric rates. Residents and businesses are and have been leaving this state due to increased costs. Banning affordable natural gas for heating and appliances will only further burden residents and businesses. Banning gasoline powered vehicles is detrimental especially for rural areas. Forcing schools, residents and businesses to buy more expensive vehicles. How long is it going to take to recharge a single bus that has to travel many miles in a day in a rural school district? Reject these plans to hike energy costs in a state that has already burdened their residents and businesses. | ||
| Michael,King | I am totally NOT in favor of this legislation. This would be an extremely large cost to residents and business in NYS. The cost of electric is very high in NYS. This would require changing all gas run appliances to electric overtime. Very costly to all NYS residents and business. GAS used at homes and business's is clean energy. The technology for electric cars has not advanced to the point that makes it practical for the average resident to use or afford. The timeframe in the legislation does NOT give enough time to implement. | ||
| william,snyder | Greenleaf Supply | This plan is insanity, banning gas appliances, what happens when we have an ice storm or high winds, and electric power is out for a couple of weeks? I lost power for 10 days with the snowstorm of October 2006. Thanks for my gas heater was able to maintain warmth in the house. How about using a gas stove you can still cook. Its obvious that politicians in Albany live in an alternate universe. In no way should gas appliances be banned! | |
| Penelope,Schoonmaker | Please read any or all articles from Alex Epstein, Michael Shellenberger or Patrick Moore (original founder of Greenpeace) about the impact of moving completely to renewable energy and eliminating coal, NG and nuclear options, especially when China and India have NO plans to modify they emissions or energy plans. The impact NYS would have in any of the stats listed (world temperature, ocean temperature/levels) would be minimal at best. Please review the issues and economic impacts seen in Germany and other European nations (also in California) in electric costs to their citizens with these changes. Electric is expensive hence why most homes have NG, propane or wood heating and cooking options. Eliminating these carbon based options will limit the number of folks who will want to continue to live and work in NY, but also the number of business and employee who would want to move to NY. $35,000 transition cost is a lot for home owners to take on never mind the annual cost difference between electric and NG energy. | ||
| Jennifer,Valentine | input on the Draft Scoping Plan Right now, fossil fuel interests and corporations are actively trying to advance false solutions and weaken the proposed scoping plan. The truly historic passage of the CLCPA, the most progressive climate legislation in the country, is incomplete until we ensure it matches the scale and urgency of the moment and benefits who it was intended to benefit. New York’s Final Scoping Plan must not contain false solutions to the climate crisis like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, biomass, waste incineration, and so-called “green” hydrogen. It must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies. New York must establish a dedicated funding mechanism—by legislation if necessary—to ensure reductions of both greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions and to begin the state's large-scale transition to an equitable renewable energy economy. An equitable economy-wide pollution fee is likely the best approach to generate the necessary funds in a just manner. New York Needs “Scenario Three” for Clean Air and a Healthy Environment: low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion and the simultaneous acceleration of electrification of both buildings and transportation to ensure clean air and a healthy environment. In order to reach a zero-emissions power sector by 2040, New York needs a rapid, large-scale transition away from fossil fuels. The Scoping Plan must ensure that the mandates put forth by the Climate Action Council are legally enforceable against industries and include timelines for the reduction of emissions by sector. Provisions for environmental justice and emission reduction mean nothing if they cannot be enforced or if there aren't rules in place for what happens when our climate justice laws are broken. It’s also vital that the Final Scoping Plan reject false solutions to the climate crisis like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, biomass, waste incineration, and “green | ||
| Mary Ann,Schifitto | My name is Mary Ann Schifitto and I am a climate advocate. I am a retired teacher and live in Rochester. Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate co-pollutants in existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new pollution hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emissions alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan, Sincerely, Mary Ann Schifitto | ||
| Janet ,Bennett | I am against going all electric. I don't feel it is reliable enough. It will also, I feel raise the already high cost of living in our state. The weather in our area is not conducive to reliable solar or wind. Natural gas is the most reliable. Also, I am against requiring electric vehicles. I feel we should have the choice to convert or not. | ||
| Donna,Benedict | Though I'm glad we are looking for soulutions--going all electric is not the way. Our electric grids can not handle the increase. Homes today can not handle the increase. You need to have a backup source for heating, cooking, washing, etc. Otherwise people will freeze, homes will freeze, water pipes will freeze, ,etc. With the latest snow storms we've had knocking out electric to many many people--those people were with out for days. And what about electric in hurricanes and tornadoes. YOU NEED THAT BACKUP SOURCE!! Electric cars sound good, but if your without electric your not going anywhere..What if you have an emergency where you need to get to the hospital and your car isn't charged enough. It takes quite awhile for these cars to charge. Peoples homes are not equipped enough to handle the extra charging load. And homes in existence today and their home owners can not afford to replace the natural gas furnaces, stoves, washer, dryers, etc. to convert it to all electric. THIS WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR MANY FOLKS. THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER SOULUTION. THERE NEEDS TO BE A BACKUP. | ||
| Linda,Wegrzyn | I'm against all climate change bills. I don't believe in climate change. It is fake. It is only being pushed to make someone money. We have natural energy resources to use. All wind mills need to be taken down, they are useless. Take more energy to make then they will ever make. Another waste is solar panels. Get rid of them too. Another waste of money. Electric cars are junk. They cost too much and you will never save enough gas in the life of the car. | ||
| Ebenezer,Yeboah | Baruch College | According to the plan, there must be at least 6 GW of distributed solar capacity by 2025 (now 1.5 GW) and 9 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2035. Although the state is aggressively attempting to develop numerous facilities off Long Island, there is presently no offshore wind power generating. An average nuclear power station has a capacity of around 1 GW. More onshore wind power is planned, but CLCPA has not said how much more. In addition, by 2030, the legislation mandates the installation of 3 GW of energy storage capacity (there is now 0.039 GW). When the sun and the wind are not shining, the storage can assist and give power to those when they are not. This idea is a simplistic starting point. According to a McKinsey report, New York will need 17 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, 11 GW of onshore wind capacity (we already have two), and 23 GW of utility-scale solar power. This fact is based on current estimates. HydroQuebec has authorized a new transmission line that has yet to be installed, but it would only make a small dent in the problem. The high capacity of wind and solar energy and the associated transmission links requires an extensive plan. This kind of new technology is not usually a straightforward process. Wind farms and transmission lines, in particular, tend to be controversial in the towns where they are built. The state's Article 10 of the Public Service Law method for approving new energy-producing units has not functioned; approvals generally take years. New legislation proposed by Governor Cuomo would remove this procedure from Article 10 and place it under the Department of Economic Development. These problems also give us a lot of great chances. To build and maintain the new facilities and equipment, many people will need to be hired and trained. Real estate, financing, construction, environmental impacts, land use, and other issues will require lawyers to deal with the unknown number of transactions that will be made in the coming years | |
| Sharon,Furletti | People in my county are poor. I can see offering alternatives but not eliminating choices. I am retired and have a limited income. My choices are based on what I can afford. My current electric bill is sky high and more than I can afford despite my conservation efforts. I am cold all winter and now you want me to freeze. Who ever is supporting this needs to be removed from office. Do you believe the rest of the world isn't using fossil fuels? Have you seen where battery components come from? Filthy toxic wastelands. It needs to be a mix of energy not one thing. I live in the country. I drive. Do you think big combines and tractors can run on batteries? No but maybe you don't plan to eat food. | ||
| Douglas,DePuy | I just received a flyer in the mail from Phil Palmesano regarding the draft scoping- plan. Even though I am a retired senior citizen who still pays taxes, I am a firm believer that our planet is well into a climate crisis. Even acting now for change may be too late, but for the sake of ALL those who come after me, we need to act. Certainly change along with “belt tightening” will be difficult for all who are involved. I cannot help but interpret the purpose of this flyer as scare tactics smelling of politics and trying to avoid loss of money; all taking precedent over saving our planet. | ||
| Douglas,DePuy | |||
| PAUL,PRY | None | "Last one out of New York turn out the lights or blow out the candle" The NYS Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), represents the most wrong-headed thinking and destructive piece of legislation I believe I have ever seen. Alternative "green" energy is in truth and fact NOT up to the task of providing for the energy needs of New York State. This "legislation": is simply going to exacerbate people leaving NYS for other states where sanity can still be found in government. This law is going to further kill business' in New York State. A great many people, families in upstate NY use wood heat as primary or supplemental heat during the winter months. ALL sources of energy should be advanced: fossil fuels (YES Fracking); Solar, Wind and Nuclear. This SHOULD have been on the ballot for the people to decide not a group of Albany elites. Challenge: if this is such a good doable idea then start it FIRST in ALBANY County and the Bourghs of New York City. Trial it for 5-10 years and see the result. | |
| Keith,DePauw | Eliminating the use of natural gas is WRONG. Making homeowners switch to electric appliances is WRONG. Stopping gasoline powered auto sales by 2035 is WRONG. Do you think we all have a pile of money sitting around to pay for all these conversions? Where is all the extra electricity going to come from? What's next, propane, fuel oil and kerosene too? Be realistic folks, people can't afford this. You'll have a lot more people burning wood for heat and that smoke is worse than natural gas emissions. Drop this plan NOW. | ||
| Donald ,Ritchie | The idea that we can go totally electric is not feasible. We cannot get there from here right now. We don’t have enough power on our grid and it isn’t a good fiscal idea to purchase power from other countries or states. We have options and not everyone can get by on just electrical vehicles. To continue on this path is a path of destruction for the very constituents you represent.There already is a exodus of people leaving the state. Think of what it will be because people can’t afford to go to work because they don’t have a means to pay for the electrical vehicle and they live in a rural area . Not everyone lives in New York city or any large city . To try to eliminate fossil fuels at this time is not going to do anything but cause undo damage to the economy and more importantly the people who you represent. | ||
| Nancy,Mielcarek | The entire state of NY needs to be considered when looking at reducing gas usage in homes. People in WNY rely on gas to heat their homes in the frigid winters. Electric heat will not only not be able to heat most of these homes, it will cost home owners so much more than gas heat. Also, to expect homeowners to pay to convert their homes from gas heat to electric is insane. People are already fleeing NYS for so many reasons and now you add this to the list. Please consider the reality that faces people of WNY and understand that this is not a realistic goal for the state. It is truly insane. | ||
| Darlene,Nygren | I am opposed to these Key elements of the proposals that include: By January 1, 2024 – LESS THAN 2 YEARS from now – BAN ANY NEW NATURAL GAS SERVICE to existing homes and buildings as well as newly constructed homes and buildings; By 2030, ban the sale of natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying; By 2035, ban the sale of gasoline powered automobiles. The climate council’s plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers – especially in rural communities and during harsh winters – and cutting off this dependable source of energy would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. | ||
| Terry,Joshi | A quick look through the Scope tells me that more can be done than is included in this project outline. Nevertheless, I encourage NYS to proceed with its Climate Action Plan and to continue to take a leadership role in the US in tis endeavor. | ||
| michael,sundberg | I am a Professional Engineer who has been working in the air quality field since 1998 and have been following the Climate Change issue since way back when it was called Global Warming. I am aghast at magical thinking associated with the CLCPA. Wind and solar may work in some parts of California and Texas but New York has particularly poor wind and solar resources. I frequently check the NYISO dashboard to see what is happening with New York’s electric grid. Today (4/29) the morning peak was about 16 MW. Wind had dropped down to only 395 MW. (NY has about 2000 MW of installed capacity and I have seen it as high as 1884 MW). Fossil fuels produced 7600 MW in New York at the peak. This is almost our best situation. Spring temperatures are mild and hydo power is at its peak. What happens on a stifling summer day when the demand is 28,000 MW and wind has stilled? What happens on a frigid winter night with no wind and obviously no solar? It would be impossible to meet this year’s demand and the demand is only going to rise as building heat and vehicles are converted to electricity. How much storage will have to be built and at what cost? I’ve seen reference to 3000 MW of storage as if that is a lot. It is a lot of money but not a lot of electricity. Storage is measured in Megawatt hours – not Megawatts. The batteries only have charge for about 4 hours until they run out. How much of the grid will have to be upgraded and what will that cost? Wind and solar will have to be vastly overbuilt to provide excess power to charge the batteries when the wind does blow. How much will that cost and how much land will have to be sacrificed to site the windfarms and solar fields? The sooner that the New York voters find out what all this will really cost, the sooner our politicians will be forced to change the law. Lets get the information out before we do our economy serious damage. | ||
| Patricia,Piwinski | I have twice typed comments and they disappeared before I send. Guess that's our Gov't s way of not receiving our comments. Typical. | ||
| Joseph,Wegrzyn | Your policy's are totally insane. Your studies are inaccurate. We have improved air and water quality. We should be using carbon based energy until a proven technology can replace it. Wind and solar are no substitutes. It is typical of government to move in a direction with no idea of the consequences. The perfect example is NYS contracting with Canada for power. All these dumb ideas is cost the tax payers more money and less freedom of choice. | ||
| Ralph,Preston | Please reject all proposals on natural gas and gasoline. Thank you Ralph Preston | ||
| Susan,Drake | Please reject all proposals to ban any new natural gas service . Ban the sale of natural gas appliances. Ban the sale of gasoline powered automobiles. Thank you Susan Drake | ||
| Lori,Thierfeldt | It is absurd to believe a transition to all electric everything will make a difference and not cost a fortune. We can do our part without being radical because other countries are not doing their part. Natural gas is clean burning and abundant here in NY | ||
| Roxanne,Sharif | It’s great news to read that Kingston is on its way to establishing a Community Choice Aggregation program to source electricity from renewable sources and save us money. Win-win! Municipalities can choose renewable energy to both lower consumer cost and support the development of more clean energy sources. What a great way to fight climate change. But we need more than choice; we need legislation and policy that will phase out fossil fuels, ramp up wind and solar power for electricity generation, and electrify transportation and building heating. We already have a law mandating that this happen, and now it’s up to the state government to implement concrete steps to meet the goals set by the law. Those very detailed steps are being developed by the Climate Action Council, which has released its draft scoping plan — the roadmap — to get there to New York’s climate goals. The climate crisis demands that the final scoping plan, in all its many facets, be bold. Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Climate Action Council must include strong provisions, including a moratorium on any new fossil fuel plants,and a plan to phase out the ones operating now. With a robust plan to achieve our climate goals and renewable power generation, all New Yorkers could benefit from a kind of statewide Community Choice Aggregation. Meanwhile, I urge our local leaders to move ahead with all deliberate speed to bring clean energy, and cost savings, to Kingston. | ||
| Kenneth,Snyder | My wife and I are both in our mid to late 70's. We live on a fixed income. We have concerns about Climate Change, however the draft proposal is ludicrous. Just how effective are heat pumps where the average temperature 4 months of the year is around 30 degrees. With everything else that is going on in the world today how do you expect individuals such as ourselves to afford everything you are proposing in such A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Please amend the draft; be practical and responsible Why not just focus on new construction and/or come up with something that is more practical and realistic. | ||
| Alden,Pearl | We should be done with the debate on the necessity for renewable energy ["Debating use of natural gas," News, April 7]. We need to stop burning fossil fuels to stave off the most disastrous effects of the climate crisis, and do it now. I am sympathetic to the plight of workers whose jobs will disappear. However, it’s important to realize that jobs have long ago peaked in the oil and gas industries, while in the renewable sector, opportunities are growing rapidly. No jobs in our society are stable forever and will change over time including those within our energy infrastructure. There are tremendous opportunities in rehabbing older buildings for renewable heat, and in building out our electric infrastructure. The fight is to make sure green jobs are good-paying jobs. | ||
| Joseph,Zarcone | Unrealistic, Moronic, ridiculous, foolish, unnecessary, waste of time. This Climate Action Council is one of the dumbest proposals imaginable. I cannot believe how ignorant the plan is. | ||
| Grace,Leightheiser | I’m a college senior in Madison County with an environmental studies background and a biology/medicine career path ahead of me. Public health interests me most with climate action planning and I have spent time investigating the state’s transportation sector. Chapter 8 specifically refers to increased physical activity, noise reduction, and curbing air pollution as health related co-benefits of decreasing transportation emissions. With the exception of air quality improvements, Chapter 11 barely acknowledges the potential for these co-benefits in the transportation strategies. The proposed measures are ambitious when it comes to ZEV adoption and I’m skeptical that enough people will buy in with only the proposed, largely financial, incentives. The plan says, “it will take a variety of strategies working in concert to limit the negative effects of climate change and create a sustainable transportation system in New York that serves all its users” (p. 100). Chapter 10 estimates that decarbonizing can lead to $50-120 billion in health benefits related to air quality improvement from 2020 to 2050, and $40 billion associated with increased active transportation (p. 85). I think it’s amazing how you’ve calculated monetary benefits for these health indicators, even at the per capita level in Figure 21. Chapter 8 reports that 1.4 million adults and 315,000 children suffer from asthma, and 60.8% of adults and 1 in 3 children are overweight or obese in NY. Considering how dramatically air quality improvements and increased physical activity could positively affect this population, I’m wondering if the outreach and incentives in Chapter 11 could be more convincing by referencing health co-benefits. Changing people’s behavior is hard, so appeals to transition to ZEVs that are directly related to their well-being might help. Will individuals feel the benefits of those estimated savings? How can we get people looking for a new car to think about their neighbor’s kid’s asthma? | ||
| Carl and Deanna,Kyser | Vote no. Too much to fast- not a reasonable time-frame. Rural NY does not have the advantages of cities. National Grid has already stated they cant meet the demand by until 2050. What plan is in place for when the electric goes out? | ||
| Gabrielle,Sorresso | Colgate University | The NYS Scoping plan has asked for public comment and input on its Economy-Wide Strategies, mainly deciding between carbon pricing strategies. This comment does not focus on choosing a plan, but rather gives suggestions for further information gathering and priortization while New York state evaluates it’s options. More should be to be done to figure out the extent of the impact on vulnerable communities and thus best assess potential mitigation strategies. Simpling stating that policies could be designed to address regressive impacts is not enough to ensure this policy does not place undue burden on the budgets of vulnerable New York communities. Before selecting a carbon pricing policy, the state government must ensure that mitigations for regressive policy function properly and allow poor community members to spend the same percentage of their income on energy as they were previously. Here, New York state should communicate with the public about exactly which sectors the carbon pricing policy will cover. From here, the New York government should rely on technical analysts to create modeled impacts on energy cost raises and changes to household budgets after policy implementation. Then the government must be transparent about the realistic long-term revenue this policy would bring in and if this covers the full net loss in vulnerable communities for the foreseeable future. Once the individuals who will receive the rebate are identified, the method of delivery should not require vulnerable residents to fill out any additional forms or paperwork to receive. Additionally, the NYS plan should weigh its criteria for evaluation, of which there are eleven, to ensure that affordability of energy in vulnerable communities is given the necessary attention. No plan can perfectly meet all eleven criteria. Therefore, I also suggest that the New York State government also provide some sort of tiering system to identify which criteria are the most important for the plan. | |
| LuAnn,Proper | This plan needs to stop going forward and be revised. While it all sounds wonderful, there are many things to consider first. The plan is too aggressive. Instead of being first, let us be the best. When implementing a plan like this the blue collar worker, the farmer and families with little children and the elderly should be considered. This plan does not. For example, when everything is electric and the power goes out how is a mother suppose to heat her baby's bottle up? When the power is out how is someone suppose to boil water? When it is cold and the power is out a gas or wood burning fireplace can be a life saver. Having an alternative power source such as natural gas is imperative! Windmills and solar panels to replace everything? Nothing was said how many of those do we need? Will we have to take down forests to put up solar? What will that do to our ecosystems? What about when this stuff breaks down? There is no plan only a study about how to recycle these things. That is not good enough. What about all the metals and batteries going into electric cars? Any plan on how this will all affect our ecosystem? NO. Also who is going to pay for this? People are having trouble making ends meet right now with the rise of food, gas and necessities. This plan will be a terrible burden right now. Instead of trying to push this through, take a step back and really rethink all this with ALL the New Yorker people in mind. Thank-You | ||
| John,Cushin | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Lucas,Rondan | Within the Scoping plan, one area of focus that I would like to discuss is the environmental justice and procedural justice aspects of the plan. In one section, on page 33, the plan mentions a Climate Justice Working group composed of environmental justice representatives, in which three members are from NYC, three are from rural communities, three are from urban communities in Upstate NY, and from DEC, Health, Labor, and NYSERDA. However, it is ambiguous to the identities of these members, as well as how the group went about choosing these members. In Gordon Walker’s book, Environmental Justice: concepts, evidence, and politics, he discusses the importance of procedural justice, or the inclusion of all voices and communities members in the decision-making process, posits the importance of local perspectives from disadvantaged communities that will represent the concerns of the community (197). Therefore, the choosing of the members of the Climate Justice Working Group should be further grounded in the underserved communities within New York City and represent local opinions. Furthermore, while it is beneficial to get a larger lens of environmental issues by hearing from outside perspectives, there should be more representation of the communities within New York City that are experiencing social and environmental injustices. Another aspect of the plan that I would like to discuss is the definition of disadvantaged communities. The definition includes a number of different communities that fall under the category of disadvantaged communities. However, while it says that these communities “include but are not limited to” these groups, there could be a larger lens of representation. This could include more vulnerable populations that are not first thought of when discussing the impacts of climate change. Boswell et al. (2019) suggest that other populations could be included in this definition, such as non-native English speakers and elderly people (251). | ||
| Karen,Patterson | I strongly support this proposal in its entirety. NY needs to be a leader in the US in the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. As we've recently seen, renewable energy doesn't increase in cost based on events halfway around the world. Climate change is real and it's nearly too late to reverse course. We need to do all that is within our power to save the planet for our grandchildren! | ||
| Wyldon,Fishman | New York Solar Energy Society | Emissions requiring immediate attention are the waste of heat and air conditioning from leaky buildings requiring air-tightness and weatherization. Inefficient fuel burning boilers and power plants take our clean air and cause terrible health outcomes especially for those who live upwind of power plants, manufacturing plants, freeways and harbor traffic. The plan needs to recognize the harmful carcinogens poisoning humans such as dioxins, and insects such as glyphosates. Organic farms do not require the importation and transportation of ammonia fertilizers based on natural gas feed stocks. Organic soil sequesters far more carbon instantly than any other low cost method. Restore health with the mineral uptake of plants grown on completely organic soil. Burning fossil fuels spreads mercury and arsenic on everything. Give us back our fish. Reopen rivers and unleash better local food while encouraging a more local economy. Immediately introduce environmental stewardship into K-12 and let the students bring the message home as they are the ones who most depend upon remediation of soot filled air and acidified lakes. All electricity powered machines are far more efficient than gas. The grid requires infrastructure and the more efficient renewable energy with batteries will lessen our overall need for so much energy. Thank you. | |
| Tina,Graziano | WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP LIVING IN NEW YORK!! STOP THIS CAC SCOPING PLAN. NO NEW TAXES & NO RIDICULOUS GREEN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS!! The radical, unrealistic, and over reaching proposals in the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan will have a devastating impact on our economy, businesses and residents and add one more item to the growing list of reasons for leaving New York. We don’t need more financial hardships; we need relief. This Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan will be enormously expensive for state and local taxpayers, not to mention residential and business utility ratepayers. It holds far-reaching consequences for this state and local economies. At a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to New Yorkers and untold costs to the economy, we are barreling full speed ahead to further crush the affordability of living for our families. We cannot afford to keep living in New York!! Eliminating the use of natural gas, propane, heating oil and wood will substantially increase the state’s demand for electricity and prove costly for consumers and businesses. Families need these reliable fuels to supply the gaps that exist with new, green energies. We cannot deny families access to traditional and plentiful fuel options. Albany’s push to eliminate New Yorkers' access to critical energy sources at the very time families are being squeezed by inflation, rising home heating costs, soaring electric bills, and gas prices 39 percent higher than a year ago, is a bad idea. These proposals pose unrealistic economic challenges and raise serious questions as to who will pay for the new, required heating systems and appliances. Families would shoulder these higher costs while facing fewer energy choices. New York already has the highest energy costs in the nation! | ||
| Claudia ,Padovano | I understand the reasoning behind this plan and wanting to follow in the presidents footsteps however NY does not have the infrastructure to handle the this. Also in upstate NY the costs that we would have to endure to switch over our heating systems is not doable for many people on a fixed income. Everyone is so quick to come up with these plans and just throw them out there without thinking about all of the details and hardship they will cause. Go back to the drawing board and if in the end you decide to move forward then figure out how you are going to help people convert because I know that I don’t have an extra $25k laying around. | ||
| Joe,Rajczak | The simple fact is that electricity costs more than gas in a household. If everyone goes electric the cost will go way up like it always has. Niagara Falls should give us cheap electricity but it doesn't. Electric appliances like stoves and dryers do not work as well as gas. My electric bill is way higher than my gas bill. That woman said the cost will go down if everyone converts to electric? No way. that just puts a great demand on one thing and the cost will skyrocket because of it. HEY BRAIN DEAD, look at gasoline and oil. What happens with that? Plus we will all have to buy new appliances? I am ready to retire and will be on a fixed income. Who will pay for me to go electric? This country sends billions to other country's in need and forgets all about their own people. Not to mention "they" are stealing everyone's SSI. Going all electric may help the environment but not all at once! This is a panic solution. | ||
| Patricia,Middleton | I support action on climate and eliminating reliance on fossil fuels. We have known for decades that fossil fuels are causing climate change resulting in extreme weather. They result in adverse health effects from pollution and adversely impact marginalized communities. I would like to see new buildings use solar and/or geothermal energy production. I would like to see elimination of gas powered cars by 2035 or sooner. I would like to see the elimination of gas powered appliances for homes. | ||
| Sarah,Howard | Please select | How can the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan be strengthened? By including investments in certified organic and agroecological farms! My recommendations include: Converting 25% of NY farmland to organic by 2030 Establishing a comprehensive soil health program that nurtures a culture of soil care among farmers, their neighbors, and their customers Requiring agricultural and forestry projects that receive public funding to use soil health practices Setting statewide soil health goals to track progress, increase accountability, and ensure the permanence of soil-sequestered carbon Discouraging the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers Including out-of-state production of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in the greenhouse gas inventory of NY farms | |
| Michele,Palmer | Templeton Landscape Architecture & Planning | I applaud this document for its thoroughness and vision. However, as a practicing Landscape Architect, the lack of a single mention of my profession is an oversight in this document that should be rectified. Architects, planners, and engineers are mentioned throughout the document as stakeholders and leaders in the transition away from fossil fuels. The American Society of Landscape Architecture's most recent Strategic Plan states as its mission 'Empowering our members to design a sustainable and equitable world through landscape architecture." As a profession, we are responsible for land planning, protection of natural resources such as forests, alternative transportation design, green infrastructure, and many other aspects of the built world that can have a positive impact on climate. Landscape architecture should be included as a profession with important stakeholders whose education and work should be supported by this plan. As Trustee for New York Upstate ASLA to our national organization, I would be happy to participate in conversations regarding the inclusion of landscape architecture in this important plan. | |
| Emily,Bauer | We can all agree that we need to help our environment to help fight climate change. The measures in this act are absolutely extreme especially for our state and it’s specific climate. Which state has a more drastic plan hoping to go into law? California. Do you know the differences between their climate and ours? Let’s state the obvious things that should be HIGH on the list of reason why this act can not happen. Winter. Majority of homes here in NY are older and have gas hookups, I know my entire street relies on gas for hot water, stove(food), dryer, and most importantly heat. Winter here is brutal, snow storms, windstorms and blizzards all words we don’t flinch at currently but take away our gas furnace for an electric one during a storm that will knock out power and we have a major crisis on our hands. The amount of deaths and hospitalizations that will happen from not having power and HEAT when temperatures are below freezing will be astronomical and will be on the hands of the people who passed this. Also mention the fact that our current electrical grid is not set up for 100% electric usage. The amount of money this will cost taxpayers not only to fix/enhance state wide issues but changes to fit this bill in their own homes will be obscene and it will have residents and business FLEEING the state for the south and mid west at higher rates than the state will have ever seen; loosing our number of representatives in the House, funding, and therefore not being able to help swing the federal government in the views of the state government which has we all know can affect how we would like to see our country run. In this state we run on democracy the people who vote for your jobs and higher ups jobs please take in consideration our feelings and create a less drastic plan that doesn’t have such a negative impact on not only our daily lives but our health and well beings. | ||
| Amir,Khosroshahi | Marketing Evolution | First many thanks to CAC, associated working groups, advisory panels, and all agency staff who contributed to the development of this impressive plan. I'd like to recommend implementation of Carbon Pricing, and seeing over NY state to be a leader and pioneer in this direction. Carbon Pricing is one of the most effective policies to reduce GHG emissions, according to countless economists and other scientist. Carbon Pricing policy maybe politically costly, but there are ways to make it more attractive to constituents: - introducing a dividend program whereby the proceed from carbon tax/fee would be remitted to low or middle income households - by making changes predictable so businesses would have enough time to prepare for and absorb those new costs - to start from a low price and rise gradually each year - to apply the carbon price it to certain sources first, which is used mainly by more affluent consumers, for example, international or long distance domestic flights. Of course, carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Carbon pricing can be a very effective policy in conjunction with other policies under consideration. No single policy would overcome the global scale of Climate Change, so a combination of complimentary policies are required to have the maximum impact, and Carbon Price is an indispensable tool toward that goal. Thank you for your consideration of the public comments. | |
| Rene ,Herrscher | These cars take too long to charge on trips, are not consistent in extreme weather, and extremely expensive to own and maintain. The parts/ minerals needed are based in China and are rare, hence cost. I want no part of being FORCED to do this. | ||
| Inge,grafe-kieklak | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Use reason not emotions or environmental religion when you make laws that effects people's live. | ||
| Christine ,Hartman | Has anyone thought about the future and how will you dispose of the batteries and cars? Batteries now we have to dispose of or transport with care. Where in god’s name will all this be dumped where it won’t harm anyone? Has anyone thought about that? No! These environmental leftist have gone too far. Why was natural gas use started? It was cheaper and more efficient because the use of electricity was too costly and it can’t sustain all the use. Look what happened the year it was hot and all the ACs were running, did we not have to cut back our use? What you want to do will cost too much in so many ways and I fear for my grandchildren’s future!! PLEASE OPEN YOUR MINDS AND LOOK FORWARD 20 YEARS of the battery land fill issues and dangers!!!!! | ||
| Cynthia,Hare | Are you out of your minds?? There will be no New Yorkers after the first winter of electric conversion. I pay 400/month now for Gas and electric service. The delivery charges are ridiculous how will any one afford this? No senior on a fixed income will survive the winter or the summer for that matter. If you want to be green do the ground work first. Heat pumps don’t work at 40 below windchills we often have in winter. The power grid is ancient and no where near ready to handle this. With the cost of everything rising how are we supposed to afford this increase. I know all you make a lot of money but low and middle income families can’t afford this. Will you just stop and THINK for once?? Then when it fails all of your population will be gone except the ultra rich and the poor can the social service organizations afford the cost of this in the HEAP programs?? Come on…Wake up | ||
| Krista,Sullivan | As a NYS resident of Erie County and also a Middle School Science teacher, I would like to know how you are really coming up with the benefits of going from natural gas to all electric for this state? Do you honestly believe that making people retrofit their homes and businesses to be all electric is actually going to make a difference for this planet? All this is benefitting is the corporations involved in the electric transformation. If you don't have the ENTIRE COUNTRY switching to this, then why penalize the residents of NYS? This is a more costly move and I would like to know how you expect people to keep coming up with the money for this? Why don't you give more incentives for people to weatherize their homes and then they wouldn't be using so much natural gas? You can go down to NC where they still use plastic bags, don't have bottle recycling, use plastic straws and they have a much cleaner state than here. Start looking at the big picture and the residents of NYS. Look at the winters that WNY residents go through - how do you expect them to pay for their electric heating bills or when the power goes out and their house generator needs natural gas to run. Start looking at all of the implications of this crazy plan you are proposing for this state and not be so quick to push things through for the benefit of few... | ||
| frank,musso | Apart from following the same criteria which CA is trying to impose on its residents as NYS is being doing in the past, wouldn't it be intelligent to formulate a plan where we are respectful of ALL of our residents instead of those that are trying to push through a 1 way agenda. In the last 10 yrs there has been tremendous change in transportation and ICE vehicle, just no one is valuating this benefits in fuel and emissions benefits because the desire is toward elimination of these vehicle, including any hybrid variants. This same criteria is being applied to home energy consumption, without looking back in the futile attempt yrs ago in using electric as a heating source in NYS homes, which proved to be cost prohibitive to most users. There has been many innovations to heat pumps, which can be used to heat and cool home, however, regardless of such improvements, heat pumps do not work well in cold climates where temps dip into the single digits and remain below freezing for days on end. Many of such conversion will bankrupt most homeowners, especially in a state like NY, where the real estate tax base is staggering. NYS need to look at all options as we transition into cleaner energy, including natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, hybrid vehicles, especially since there is no way to support any large volume use of electric cars with the lack of infrastructure we have currently. I am in support of improving our climite conditions with an all inclusive approach that would not alienate and hurt most of the residents of NYS. Everyone is cheering this electrification train that is left the station already, but no one is looking that MOST OF THE TRACK IS MISSING. | ||
| Charlotte,Allen | Hello, I was seeing if you could help me with a zoning issue in my town affecting the natural landscape. The town of Dover Plains and it’s hamlet Wingdale are very small towns but have so much natural beauty as well as the great swamp which is protected land. There has been a new proposed zoning of many of green areas in the town which will absolutely affect the landscape and the community. I was born and raised in this town and feel very passionate about the problems that have arose due to its demographic of being mostly low income families. I feel that the community has been taken advantage of by one huge corporation and they continue to profit off the land by destroying habitats. The town board has discreetly made these types of plans but luckily there are other people trying to preserve the land. I have attached the proposed plan and look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you for your time and all that you do! Sincerely, Charlotte Allen | ||
| Mary ,Brummer | Cannot move out of this state fast enough. | ||
| Brent,Kelley | |||
| Marilyn ,Higgins | Your plan fails to pay attention to the importance of historic preservation as the greenest strategy of all for new development. In a state with such a plethora of abandoned historic structures, New York should lead by developing energy infrastructure strategies for restored structures,and providing incentives for green historic preservation . | ||
| Stephen,Keyes | |||
| Sara,Culotta | Tier Energy Network | NYS should financially promote the use of made-in-NY clean energy technology by providing adders to incentives when these products are used. Every quarter there are more clean energy products being manufactured in NY, thanks to all the great work done over the last 5 years by NYSERDA-funded business incubators, commercialization of University research, etc. Three examples are batteries, solar panels and solar roof shingles all being manufactured in the Greater Binghamton area by Imperium 3 (now building out a Lithium Ion Battery Gigafactory), Ubiquity Solar (high efficiency solar panels), SunTegra (solar roof shingles). State dollars spent to promote use of made-in-state technology will be a force multiplier creating jobs and keeping money local. It also support workforce development, easing recruiting and training when potential workers can see and learn directly from the use of this technology in their own communities/state. I have hear that the State of Maryland has enacted this legislation and companies are using it. | |
| Katherine,Brown | I understand emissions need to be reduced. However, this plan is too burdensome on a large group. I live on disability-$1700/month. I can’t afford my heating costs now, let alone the huge increase that will be caused by switching to electricity. Plus, the added cost of a new furnace, dryer, oven, etc. This plan is unfair, unworkable & cruel. | ||
| Barrett,Trenholme | The idea of evaluating in benchmarking buildings under 10,000 ft.² is very beneficial. The financing needs to be increased in advanced so incentives for small building owners are establich and the payoff time is very clear. | ||
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | We should explore both thorium molten salt reactors and small module reactors as part our carbon-free generation system. These are at different levels of maturity, but both have advantages over current light water reactors. Thorium molten salt reactors have the added benefit that they can use spent nuclear fuel from current reactors and transform it into something less dangerous, solving two problems at once. Thorium is currently produced as a byproduct of mining rare earths and there is a supply sufficient for several thousand years of energy production. Unlike solar, the plants will last for decades and do not need large amounts of land. Also, they will not need grid storage. They are not truly renewable, but could help get us to reliable, carbon-free power faster than just solar and wind. | |
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | Grid-level storage should not use lithium-ion batteries. 1) these will compete for supply with transportation, which does need them 2) they rely on scarce materials and this could lead to geopolitical issues There are liquid metal batteries in field test now which are not suitable for transportation but will serve well as grid storage, as they use common materials and have a very long life, as they do not degrade over many charge-discharge cycles. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured "feebate" on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies, including mobility-oriented development. | |
| John,Keevert | Cliamte Solutions Accelerator | We knew about the coming climate crisis 50 years ago and did little. Now the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is significant, but the NYSERDA study showed the cost of inaction is even greater. We now must rapidly and dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We have to incur the cost of doing this by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action as well as using other funding mechanisms. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I encourage and would pay a carbon price with dividend, basically a producer fee. It should be a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. This worked in Canada, eventually. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Some of the funding is needed to incentivize individual behavior like weatherization and shifting to heat pumps. Funding is also needed to promote a more rapid shift to renewable energy than simple market forces will bring. The priorities of the previous Climate and Community Investment Act well reflect my own. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I wholeheartedly support upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating . Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate co-pollutants in existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new pollution hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rochester | I am deeply concerned about climate change because of the danger it poses to future generations and the present challenges we must already face. We must dramatically reduce our emissions in every sector to limit further harm. We must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses - the largest source of GHG emissions in NY - to net zero. For some, the costs of heating a home can be crippling in the winter and the lack of air conditioning in the summer can put them in peril. Electrification, in combination with weatherization and other efficiency improvements provides a path to affordable living for those who struggle to maintain acceptable living conditions. For others, it provides a path to more predictable living expenses and a cleaner environment. For all of us, it provides a path to a cleaner and better future. Fossil fuel interests have been spreading misinformation about the Scoping Plan, describing its vision for a fossil fuel-free New York as “unaffordable”, and electric home heating as “unreliable”. I reject these deliberate mischaracterizations and I congratulate the Climate Action Council for successfully mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable. The recent events in Ukraine underscore the need for energy independence and fossil fuel independence. Putin’s horrific actions are compelling nations across the globe to reduce their dependence on oil and gas so as to avoid funding a tyrannous regime. Furthermore, the rising cost of fossil fuels since Putin’s Ukraine invasion has been dictated by global market conditions and not by our nation’s ability (or inability) to meet its own fossil fuel needs. We must do our part to remove fossil fuels from the international geopolitical equation, and at the same time provide reliable, clean and affordable energy to meet the needs of homes and businesses in New York State. | |
| Milena,Novy-Marx | U of Rochester | Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. Climate Change and reducing GHG emissions is the number one issue on which I vote. I support politicians and officials willing to take market-based, forceful action. Thank you! | |
| Liz,Hoyler | To the Climate Action Council: My name is Liz Hoyler and I live in Rochester, NY 14625. I am a retired nurse and a mother. Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Liz Hoyler | ||
| Frank,Kolbmann | Legal NYS Taxpayer | Well the strategically stacked and politically padded NYS Climate Action Council held it's local performance of the legislatively required theatre last night at the Erie County Public Library in Buffalo. Public commentary was given to the mentally closed minds of our Buffalo area socio-political elitists council members. The council's self proclaimed "ambitious" law passed in 2019 to completely electrify NY by aggresively banning the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels in an unreasonable and unrealistic time frame was unanimously debunked by electrical and fuel professionals with easily hundreds of years combined experience. They repeated the facts that our electrical grid cannot/won't be able to withstand the increases in power demand and that the cost to NYrs will be triple to comply and conform. Ironically the administration of this plan will immediately critically burden the un-characteristically behaved climate activist extremists that showed up last night. The industry pros charged with the "complete electrification" task reminded everyone that the obscene costs they incur will obviously be handed down to climate activists and all other consumers in order for their profrssional survival after already struggling with NYS dysfunctionate and abusive covid policies the last two years. Simply put in common sense terms the eletist cherry picked panelists Donahue, DeCarolis, Elsenbeck, Seggos, Ball, and Iwanowicz were not picked for their expertise, which grossly pales in comparison the the pro commentators last night, but rather their immense experience and talents at playing brown-nose ball. My comments to the panel at the end of the night summarized the hundred or so before me: Extend comment period, slow down implementation, rationally use all power source options, dont irrationally ban most affordable fuel option, and if you dont...get ready to witness the increase of the current mass exodus and fall of NY. | |
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | o We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. o We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. o We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. o I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. o A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. o Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. o In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. o Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | |
| Suzie,Ross | Green Ossining | I am a climate advocate. We must: *support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions; *bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action; *implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. | |
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | My name is Lou Anne and I live in Penfield, New York. I am a climate advocate, a mom, a grandparent, and a retired teacher. Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | |
| JEREMY,GRACE | Resident of Penfield, NY | Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | ||
| Anthony ,Wrobel | More business and people fleeing every day, eliminating a primary heating source in the North East is rediculously and recklessly forcing even more to flee. Cost of transition and the burden put on those who are stuck here is unfair and will be costly. The current electrical system brown's out now during summer months and fails to consider power outages in cold weather. People will freeze and there will be lost job's and tax revenue. Terrible idea for NYS. | ||
| Bobbie,Thoman | Hello, my name is Bobbie Thoman and I am writing in as a mother of two young boys. In 2050 they will be 32 and 34 years old. I am a Greenhouse Gas Accountant and have spent that last 8 years working in the CleanTech sector. I am writing because last night I attended the Buffalo Draft Scoping Plan Public Hearing in Buffalo, NY and observed that the average age in the room was quite high, and there was a lack of diversity in both the panel sitting on the Climate Action Council and from the audience in the room. I have been working in the climate sector for 8 years and all of my experience overwhelmingly concludes that we should be amplifying indigenous voices to find climate solutions, yet I didn't hear a single person last night identify themselves as indigenous. As you continue to obtain public feedback please do more to engage the voices that will be the most impacted by Climate Change, and as one of the presenters pointed out, develop better representation of BIPOC communities on the Climate Action Council, in order to better encourage the participation of BIPOC communities throughout this public consultation process. | ||
| Meredith,Faltin | Queens Climate Project | We need to transition as quickly as possible to renewable energies that do not poison our land, air, and water. Please consider the environment and future generations when making these plans. | |
| Joe,Herr | Man made global warming is a lie our planet goes thru cooling and warming phazes. This is about government overreach nothing more. We should be investing in nuclear power its clean and no windmill or solar pannel can compete with nuclear's output. Nuclear power creates thousands of high paying jobs. Solar/wind will never create enouf power to support current grid. Lithium needed for electric vehicles is strip mined using heavy equipment burning disel fuel. I will also never give up my woodburner to heat my home banning those is about myself and others like me not paying gas company and ultimalty nys tax which is all you greedy corrupt democrats care about (stealing my hard earned money) | ||
| Stephanie,Stoll | I feel that this plan is short-sighted and with much of the policies and politics in New York State ignore the consequences that will fall mostly on the shoulders of those outside New York City. Our grid and our roads are not suited to transition to all electric and asking private homeowners to retrofit their homes with their own money is just another oppressive measure of this state. I will be leaving within the next few months to escape the taxes, policies, and outright disregard for individual liberties and freedoms but while I remain a resident I can not stand by silently especially since my parents and one sibling sill still call NY home. | ||
| Douglas,Galli | Reid Stores Inc. | ||
| Brenda,Sisson | Switching to all electric is a terrible idea for WNY. There are many places that don’t have reliable electric and outages can last days...when the temperatures are below zero and the power is out people will die. With the snowfall and rural communities of WNY and most of upstate to be considered, this is not a good plan for all of NY. Maybe a better plan would be encouraging solar and self sustaining home options so that there is less strain on the grid. There are better options then forcing people to their deaths because you think all electric is the answer. Also, with the jobs you claim to create with this plan you will be forcing many out of work in the fireplace and gas industty | ||
| William,Urban | This would be an unbeleaveable expence for all new yorkers.stop this now!! | ||
| Tricia,Barnes-Garback | Gorham United Methodist Church | It is clear that the research being used for this bill is heavily biased: to electricity, to the privileged, and to the urban. Electricity is not the clean energy that it purports to be. While we have Niagara Falls (whose energy is being shipped to NYC at low rates the rest of the state doesn’t see) that only supplies a fraction of the electricity for the state. Much of the electricity in the Northeast is being produced in coal or methane burning facilities. How is that cleaner? The privileged may be able to retrofit a new build home to electric heat, but the urban poor, the rural, and the agricultural simply cannot. Leaving out the higher cost of heating with inefficient electrical equipment in frigid areas of the state, the estimates given of $900-$1200 retrofits are laughable. I maintain my family home in inner-city Buffalo where my children live and I plan to retire. I am still trying to get my home retired from a post and tube wiring system. It has already cost me over $900 for just one floor of a three floor house (counting the attic) because the house is over 100 years old. The codes have changed so much since the house was electrified, that I am just piling up costs. Even if my electricity were up to date, my plaster and lathe home could not be easily retrofitted for electric registers. Finally, how do you expect rural constituents to survive on electricity alone? Many of the electrical systems here in Ontario County are generations old. There is no way these systems could handle that kind of increased load. The same problems with my inner-city home apply to the older homes in rural areas. The idea that that the majority of households in this state can find even $900-$1200 affordable is incredible. To use the cant of the street, check your privilege. This is a bad plan, conceived to make a big splash politically. There are so many other plans to reduce greenhouse effects that would make sense for our state. This is about elections, not electricity. | |
| Kenneth,Kujawa | National Grid | Last week, National Grid launched our vision to eliminate fossil fuels from our gas and electric systems by 2050 to reach our shared greenhouse gas reduction goals. In Western New York, National Grid is an electric utility and greater electrification will play a critical role in the clean energy future. Weatherization and energy efficiency are also critical to reduce overall energy use. A third critical element is to utilize the existing gas network to deliver low-carbon and no-carbon fuels. This hybrid approach can achieve net zero more reliably and with more affordable customer options, ensuring no community is left behind in the clean energy transition. The energy system must be looked at as a whole. Reliability, affordability and optimization are all issues that must be addressed. The New York Independent System Operator has raised concerns about the Power Generation Advisory Panel's recommendations on eliminating certain types of generation facilities. The NYS Reliability Council and NYISO reliability planning process must be included in the analysis of system reliability for the state. New York is currently a summer-peaking electric system. Building the electric network to meet a new winter peak based on full electrification is not cost effective. As the incumbent electric utility, we are calling on the state to support a better approach by leveraging existing networks to deliver low and no-carbon fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, reduce unnecessary new infrastructure, maintain reliability and provide more affordable transition options for customers. The Plan cannot exclude current viable solutions nor can it exclude developing technologies. A coordinated gas and electric decarbonization strategy is a better way to manage the costs and feasibility risks of the State's plan. | |
| Dennis,Crissy | The road to hell is paved with good intention. New York’s aggressive timeline to curb carbon emissions is way to fast. A society that has relied on fossil fuels can not be changed quickly. Power outages are very common and many of us have back up generators..what about those? How will they be replaced? Eliminating fossil fuels which have been very cost efficient will again burden us who live in this tax heavy State. Forcing us to upgrade to more expensive cars and appliances is a not a combination for a robust future. Monthly expenses for electric will crust many on low/fixed incomes. This does not even take into account our increased taxes to pay for this transition which will absolutely be twice as high as projected costs. Supply chains will struggle to meet this demand of electric appliances. Charging systems will not be deployed in time. There are far too many negatives to proceed and this decision should be left up to the voters of New York State. Not a mandated regulation and law. Thank you | ||
| Jane,Hettrick | The proposed Climate Action Plan is awful and should be scrapped immediately. Forcing New Yorkers to switch from natural gas to electricity will present an undue burden on the citizens of NY and will have little to no effect on the environment. Natural gas is clean energy. It is cheap, safe and does not pollute. Electricity is often powered by coal and is not climate friendly. Gas is more reliable. There are not gas outages like there are electric power outages. Gas does not worry about an overburdened electric grid. You don’t have to worry about gas outages because too many people are using gas at the time. Gas is adjustable and electricity is not. Gas is preferable for cooking because it is easily and quickly adjusted to the desired level. Electric ranges take forever and cannot be turned off immediately after. They retain heat for awhile and are dangerous to small children and others who get burned on electric stove tops not realizing the coils are hot after being turned off. Electric heat takes forever to turn on. Once in it takes a long time to cool down. In addition to these obvious disadvantages, forcing New Yorkers to switch all their appliances will be extremely costly and impractical for most - especially in high poverty areas. It is unconscionable that government elites would consider forcing the citizens to buy all new appliances just to placate their power grab. People can’t afford food let alone buy an expensive new stove to cook it on. Get real!!! Finally, the majority of the earth’s climate problems are not caused by natural gas: it comes from carbon pollution in the developing world and not from some family in Syracuse’s furnace. | ||
| Eric,Mucha | This plan goes too far and will put a huge burden on taxpayers and energy rate payers. People will be leaving the State in droves and the remaining taxpayers will be forced to pay even more. This plan is impractical. | ||
| Joseph,Benedict | WNY Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors | ||
| Thomas,Fisher | This is the dumbest plan ever. Listen as long as we have wars and people putting o keys in space for fun this plan is unacceptable. This is once again making the middle class for the total disregard by the rich. We still need trains and boats. This state is not California, nor should we be even trying to mimic there failures. Let’s balance the budget this year by dissolving this over paid board and get back to work in planting trees to help reduce carbon. Natural gas is in large abundance as in its name natural… if it is not utilized and continues to be produced by the planet… what happens to be planet then? You over lobbying, trying to look intelligent and important people need to go. Your theories are just that theories….some idiot once thought the world was flat… good thing we didn’t listen to him.. and most definitely why the wonderful people of NY should not listen to you! | ||
| Joel,Lee | You folks allow the constant price gouging of us in NYS and do nothing how dare you claim this will help us. It will not gas and electric meters could be read every month they are not!!!!!. Stop taking our money the CEO's of National Fuel and National Grid have more money than they need.Stop gouging us the NY State customers of Electric and Gas. Cut the bills down so we can have money back in our pockets. | ||
| Darlene,Rajczak | Natural gas products (ovens, furnaces, etc.) has always been more fuel efficient than electric products. I guess people opposed to gas have never cooked on an electric stove. Horrible. My electric bill in the summer is double my gas bill in the winter. We heat with gas and use central air in the summer. Soon, we won't be able to afford that. Seniors and disabled do not get raises like the people actually still working. Anyone who thinks that the price of electricity will come down just is not thinking right. We live right next to Niagara Falls and we were supposed to get our electricity very cheap. Never happened and it won't. The more the people use, the higher the demand will be and that is when they raise the prices! The electric companies can say what they want right now, but that is what ALWAYS happens. Look at the price of oil, the more we need the higher they raise the prices. If this does happen, you will find even more people moving out of NYS. I already have lost over half of my immediate family to the south. We already pay extremely high taxes, even though every politicians promises not to raise them. If this comes to pass with getting rid of natural gas there will only be the rich and the welfare people still in this state. | ||
| Cindy,Apthorpe | Heating a home in WNY with electricity is not a feasible option. When I used to have ac window units for only a few months in the summer my electric bill skyrocketed extremely high. I could not even imagine what it would be to heat my home for the entire fall, winter, and spring. What might work for downstate will not work here. Also, I hate cooking on electric stoves. The burners are not as sensitive as gas, they don’t heat evenly, and they remain hot long after they are turned off. | ||
| Thomas ,Harmon | Your plan fails to adequately address power sports equipment including off road vehicles. Boats. Snowmobiles and even my gas lawn mower. I also have rural property and have a small diesel tractor I use to cut the grass. Your plan wants to make my power sports equipment and my tractor non functional. I also just purchased a new boiler and water heater for my home. At the current time there is no electronic alternative to my gas fired boiler, how do you address this? Am I supposed to undergo a 30k conversion adding duct work or mini splits just to heat my home? On the surface your plan looks ok but it fails to address many many concerns and I do not support it | ||
| STEPHEN, Miles | This is a horrible plan that will hurt the states poor and middle class especially. Please do not ban natural gas hookups,heating oil, more taxes. My family is barely making it in New York state and this will cause us to leave New York State. | ||
| Alex,Bedard | My name is Alex Bedard and I'm a student at Fordham University in the Bronx. I'm interested in climate action and environmental justice, and ever since moving here I have learned about the unique struggles that residents of The Bronx experience due to the climate crisis. I cannot speak for the lifelong residents of The Bronx, but I have heard too many stories of increased risk of asthma and poor air regulations in schools and homes in the Bronx, therefore I think it is important that this plan prioritizes environmental justice. Moving forward with this plan, it is vital that the safety and health of Bronx and New York City residents is prioritized. That means moving to renewable energy, creating safer and more energy-efficient infrastructure, and allocating adequate funding to do so. That being said, I find it very important to not leave workers in blue collar industries behind, and we must ensure that training and job opportunities for these workers are available. I support the clean energy goals of this plan and I thank you for your consideration. Alex Bedard | ||
| Andrew,Zysek | Electricity is a good thing. But going total green is unbelievable and very much a fantasy. You cannot sustain the entire state on electricity the grid will fail. You do not have the infrastructure for this. You do not have the money or funds for this. Many people families cannot afford it. You will kill many innocent people if we have another blizzard of 77 etc. Why because electricity is breakable oil and gas aren't. Neither is firewood. This climate change is a hoax. You will be wasting farmland that cannot ever be used again with some of the panels and stuff used. Why because it poisons the ground. Again harming the earth. You're hypocrites because to run electricity you do it off diesel engines. You cannot sustain this and most people especially country people will not follow this plan. For cities it's great but for rural people it will not work and will cost lives. You really need to just leave us people alone. This is government overreach and it needs to stop. This is not economical, safe, reasonable, or sane. Because it's unnatural because you can't change mother nature. You cannot change God. You cannot change the fact that we have a thing called weather. Which isn't any worse than it was a hundred and fifty years ago before we got a lot of the new ways of living. | ||
| Ryan,Kelly | Please keep natural gas as an option for home heat going forward. Electric prices can fluctuate in cold weather and prices could become drastically higher if we had cold winters. | ||
| David,Sutter | Read about the plan for 2030 in the Buffalo News. As a retired home owner to meet the new requirements to convert to all electric is NOT financially possible! I get the idea for new builds, but to require someone with a 70 year old home to convert gas appliances & gas heat to all electric is INSANE! Where's the money supposed to come from? Also: to do this throughout the state: the electrical grid would have to be rebuilt/ upgraded. It barely keeps up now! I'd appreciate a response! | ||
| Sarah,Burger | It is time that we create, fund and implements cohesive plan to get off of fossil fuels without depending on false solutions such as biomass, renewable gas and hydrogen. The lack of planning our grid should not justify not adopting renewables. We could plan our grid so that it functions better. Right now there will likely be more outages regardless of energy sources because we don’t maintain and plan our grid. The subsidization of gas and other fossil fuels should not be claimed as the only affordable option for heating and fuel because we could subsidize clean energy or let fuels stand on their own in the market without subsidies. It’s time that we focus on the next seven generations and not the priorities and false assumptions of past generations. | ||
| Douglas,Metzger | This entire effort is overreach, and not supported by the majority of NY residents who will be forced to pay for it. NY cannot operate in a vacuum and pretend that its efforts alone will change the climate or accrue all of the health benefits glowingly reported in the draft. E.G. People will walk more and be more healthy....really?? Benefit allocation is arbitrary and is overly apportioned to "disadvantaged" communities. Other disadvantaged groups such as older retired people on fixed incomes and the vast majority of hard working NY residents who can barely pay for their taxes, shelter, and transportation now in our high cost high inflation environment are totally ignored. In fact, it is clear that they will be expected to pay much much more while other Groups are "protected". Benefits should accrue to everyone. Timelines in general are way too aggressive. Most of NY is cold. Taking away people's heat by mandating that no gas heating appliance can be sold in just 8 short years not only will bankrupt folks, but could also be life threatening when they cannot get a furnace replaced in the middle of winter. If this is going to be done we need to ensure that there is adequate electric infrastructure in place, AND Government should be fully prepared to highly subsidize the cost of transition for ALL New Yorkers. | ||
| Bob,Meindl | I guess I don't know what to say. New York legislators have lost their mind. Going green may be good but you should have thought about it 50 years ago. This plan will cost us billions and a burden on all New Yorkers. This is politicians putting the cart before the horse as usual. Just the cost to change your home to all electric is more than one can afford. And most importantly you don't have the amount of electricity needed to power all. There's no infrastructure and won't be in the time frame stated. Let's look at one example. Has anyone looked around in say Buffalo NY to see that most homes have little or no driveway for their "electric car". Drive the streets. Apartment complexes, senior living buildings, etc. How will you "plug them in"? Alternate street side parking. In some areas you can't park near your own residence. Plug it in...REALLY? Many issues to resolve and no idea who will pay for it all. Oh that's right...tax payers. The cost alone to convert your home furnace, dryer, stove, water heater is well out of reach for the home owner not to mention landlords. As usual legislators don't use common sense they just go where the money leads them. SCRAP THE PLAN. You want to save the planet save the oceans first. Re-green the earth. | ||
| Mark,Corey | This plan seems to be an environmentalist's and social activist's wet dream to control all aspects of free citizens lives without legislative action. This plan ends my dreams, and starts the collectives dreams without consent of the dreaming population. What is the rate of low sun spot activity and temp. Change on Earth compaired to high sun spot activity?? I could not find the DATA. The tsunami from a few years age , knocked Earth out of it's equallibrium, and caused the Earth to wabble a bit. This produced data reguarding planetary natural change. Does the climate committee's minutes show this dissusion and how it( naturally) changed the Earth's temp.? Please help me see real leadership at this committee, and show me where your conversations reflect REAL DATA. | ||
| Mark,Corey | Citizen | I have been looking for a chart/ graph , showing natural rise and fall of earth's temp. Compaired to man influence on temp.. I have not been able to find any information on pre fossil fuel use, compaired to post fossil fuel use. The idea that nature does not change if man is not burning earthly resources, is crazy. Resent glaceirs explosing organic waste has revieled multiple earthly violent changes not caused by mans use of fossil fuels, but natural occurances, is proof the natures normal temps changes dramaticly without mans involement. How is it all climate change is mans destruction of it's planet. When a beaver destroys a valley of flora, to be it's family's home, we celebrate. But when man clears a woodlot for it's family he/ she/ ? Is considered a plague on the earth. Please show the meetings on video for the public, and have them archived. | |
| Brad,Dean | I am gratified to see New York take leadership on this vital issue. Thank you for your good work in advancing public support and understanding. I hope you will not be discouraged by the inevitable pushback and manufactured outrage you have certainly encountered. Sincerely, B.C.Dean, Buffalo, N.Y. | ||
| David,Durante | The Climate Act is extreme, rushed, outrageously expensive and life changing for New Yorkers. It will drive more people from the state.Enormous cost to individuals and businesses It has grossly unrealistic goals. Removal of natural gas. Insane Retrofitting heat pumps and using unproven technologies- how does a windmill generate if there is no wind-see Texas These are just a few concern We need reasonable and well thought out climate plans with input from state residents, and real world costs need to be known. | ||
| David,Kasprowicz | While I agree with the overall goal of reducing carbon emissions, not only state-wide, but globally, the current state plan goes too far, too fast, and would burden homeowners by mandating the use of more expensive heating equipment and fuel sources, like electricity, that cost more than natural gas. Natural gas has a long track record of safe, reliable, efficient and cost effective performance for meeting New York's energy needs. The cost of operating a home with electricity is approximately double that of using natural gas. Suddenly removing this as an option, especially in residential housing, will have a substantial financial impact on individual homeowners across the state, especially upstate where heating requirements are more substantial, and in urban communities where housing stock is generally older and less energy efficient. The current plan to electrify everything immediately at any cost, without sufficiently addressing the needed increase in electric supply and the added loads on the distribution system will likely cause increased electricity costs and put the current system at increased risk of failure. Also, requiring existing homes to convert to electricity will require substantial unnecessary costs. Alternatively, efforts should be focused on increasing the efficiency of home systems, such as the use of high-efficiency furnaces, on-demand water heaters and increased home insulation. | ||
| Alexis ,O'Rourke | Pratt Institute | It is imperative that we decarbonize our buildings throughout New York City. In 2019 the building sector was responsible for 32% of emissions statewide. Decarbonizing our buildings means eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings and building uses. One way that we can do this is through improving the building envelope. This physical barrier separates the conditioned and unconditioned environment from water, air, heat, light and noise. A good building envelope can positively affect the ventilation, climate and energy consumption of a building while a bad building envelope can lead to poor air quality and circulation as well as increased energy usage. High performance buildings will have low thermal loss with the help to proper thermal insulation, use of renewable energy, and other green infrastructure components such as green roofs. Additionally, embodied carbon can be reduced by choosing low carbon materials or carbon-sequestering products at the time of construction. This sector is already seeking mitigation strategies through The New Efficiency: New York which aims to reduce energy waste, fossil fuel use, and GHG emissions while also creating an equitable environment, clean energy jobs and energy affordability. Most importantly these buildings will be more comfortable, healthy and energy efficient for the owners and occupants. My only concern with this plan is that it is developed into goals, 2030 and 2050. Climate change is happening right now and we need to act quickly to reduce current climate impacts within the building sectors. Understandably these motions take time for policymakers and stakeholders to create, develop and implement, the public should continue to advocate for a swift implementation of such infrastructure improvements. | |
| BP,Logel | The New York 2019 Climate Act is short-sighted and sets unrealistic goals, costs, and will be a major negative impact to the local economy. The transition period, beginning in 2024, does not properly take into account costs of materials and labor due to a sudden increase in demand. Current and future home owners will be subject to price gouging and burdensome regulations that will leave them at a financial disadvantage. People are already leaving NY State due to the high taxes and high cost of living. If this legislation passes, there will be a mass exodus of New Yorkers. NYSEG, RG&G and other utility providers are already sounding the alarm that their infrastructure may not be able to handle the conversion to electric vehicles as planned. The addition of the Climate Act places a burden on utility providers to undergo massive infrastructure upgrades. Consumers will pay an increased price for everything this legislation touches. Stop this madness and enact some common sense goals with realistic time schedules. New York state home owners already pay enough. Stop adding unnecessary costs. Sincerely, B. Logel NY Resident | ||
| Tim,Shiley | ProAmpac | As the plant manager of a medium sized manufacturing operation near Buffalo, I am very concerned about the impact of this legislation on manufacturing. First is the feasibility of replacing the BTU energy of natural gas with other energy sources. Our process requires maintaining a furnace at 1600F 24/7 and uses natural gas to do so. There currently is no equipment made that can accomplish this on an industrial scale that can replace natural gas as the reliable energy source. Furthermore, we compete on a national and global scale for our products. Any additional costs will put us at a competitive disadvantage with other companies using clean burning, reliable, plentiful, and cost effective natural gas. I am concerned about the continued investment and stability of the 150 well paying manufacturing jobs in Western New York with increased costs associated with this plan. Will the state guarantee no higher costs? Is the NYS electrical grid capable of handling the significant increase in power consumption? I'm available to discuss anytime if you want additional feedback. | |
| Kevin,Lynch | I think the state is making a big mistake in the headlong rush to eliminate the use of natural gas as a home heating method. The enormous cost to homeowners to transition natural gas based heating to electrical will be cost prohibitive for many homeowners, including me. I own and live in a home with a natural gas forced air furnace. It supplies heat throughout the home through a series of air ducts. I am not clear how electric will replace this heating method. Most heat pumps I’m aware of are single unit ones, much like window air conditioners compare to central air. They provide heat at one localized point. Is there an electric unit that heats a central furnace? I am also told conversion may be in the $25000 plus range. Who pays this massive increased cost over a $5000 to $10,000 furnace? Who pays to upgrade my 100 watt service to handle the added electric load? It had better be NYS through a grant, as it’s your bright idea to go this route. Who is going to pay the added energy bills? Electricity in NYS is already well above the national average cost per KWh, especially when delivery costs and taxes are added. Unfortunately, this foolish bill will result in the poor and fixed income people choosing whether to stay warm or put food on the table or get needed medicines. I fear also that this bill will discourage homeowners from replacing older, less efficient heating systems until absolutely necessary. I think putting additional effort into increasing home insulation to reduce the heating needed is necessary. I could use new, more energy efficient sliding glass doors and windows, but am not aware of financial assistance or incentives to get it done. In summary, NYS needs to understand and address the disproportionate impact this program will have on poorer upstate homeowners and remedy this impact. $600,000,000 to a billionaire is ok? How much is NY putting into helping homeowners? Sorry, I’m not on board unless I get help with making the change | ||
| Crystal ,Akins | Make New York more affordable for residents. Stop making it so our children want to move away just to be able to afford to be self sufficient. | ||
| Midori,Hirtzel-Church | As the daughter of an elderly mother living on a fixed income, I am very concerned about how she will be able to afford to convert her home's HVAC system, especially given recent inflation. Additionally, my mother-in-law is also on a fixed income, and her apartment complex has been experiencing electrical outages, some lasting for days. I worry that the increased demand for electricity will only increase these events. | ||
| Carol,Bowerman | It is futile to argue or reason with the science and feasibility of such policy. The architects and orchestrators of such follow another agenda. Not too many years ago, we were encouraged to make the switch to natural gas...the cleanest and most efficient. We the People reject and oppose the agenda outlined in ‘Your’ Climate Act Draft Scoping Plan. | ||
| Rochelle,Bell | Monroe County, NY | I would like to see carbon removal elevated in the "toolbox." Specifically, I think, for NYS, carbon removal via capture, processing and sequestration in soil by the widespread use of cover crops offers a relatively quick, easy, highly effective, multi-beneficial way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. For an eloquent, thorough discussion of carbon removal, please watch the first 20 minutes of the XPRIZE Carbon Removal Virtual Team Summit 2021-12-13 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6zElfnNkTU And for the examples of the power of carbon removal by agriculture, please see the EcoRestoration Alliance's website here: https://bio4climate.org/era/ The founder of this Alliance calls Rochester, NY, his home. Thank you, Rochelle Bell Senior Associate Planner Monroe County, NY | |
| Alex,Gibson | A giant waste of taxpayer money. Idealistic and unsustainable spending on toxic "Green energy" infrastructure. | ||
| Herb,Schrayshuen | Herb Schrayshuen is an electric power engineer located in the Syracuse area. He offers the following background and comments for consideration by the Climate Action Council (CAC) in the development of its final Scoping Plan. The CAC Draft Scoping Plan briefly mentions various technical challenges related to intermittent renewable resources. Typically, the Draft Scoping Plan’s remarks focus on the intermittent nature of the output of these resources due to wind or solar energy source variability. The CAC draft scoping plan does not offer enough information to address the seriousness of the demonstrated risk to resilience and reliability related to an already identified systemic reliability issue related to renewable resource control systems performance. The comments were summarized and delivered verbally at the Public Hearing on the draft scoping plan in Syracuse NY on April 26, 2022 | ||
| Paul,Antonik | The plan to electrify buildings is too aggressive, and should be delayed until a reliable and stable electricity supply can be guaranteed, otherwise the plan will create life threatening situations. Our rural upstate community regularly loses power during rain, snow, ice, and wind events. Just a week ago on 19 April 2022, we lost power intermittently at least 6 times within an hour, before power was then lost for a 2-hour period. Many of our neighbors were without power for several hours. A more serious event happened a month earlier. On 21 March 2022 not only did we lose power, but a large voltage surge, the cause of which was unknown to National Grid, destroyed service entrance electric meters and major home appliances in our area. In the winter month of January, our area rarely sees temperatures above freezing. Average high temperatures are about 27 degrees F, and average lows are about 15 degrees F, but we also often see sub-zero temperatures for extended periods. A loss of heat during those temperatures can be life-threatening, as well as place the building’s plumbing systems at risk of freezing and bursting. We currently rely upon propane gas fireplaces to heat our home during winter power outages, and we also have the option to run a gasoline or propane generator to run our oil burning furnace. The plan acknowledges the need for supplemental heating systems in cold climates, but assumes that supplemental heat will be needed for only the 5% coldest hours, and does not take into account the complete loss of power for hours or days. The plan also assumes that only a small percentage of buildings will need supplemental heat, and that the need will be phased out as technology improves. I urge you to reconsider the timeline outlined in the draft plan in regards to the electrification of buildings. If the use of fossil fuels is eliminated before a reliable and stable supply of electricity can be guaranteed, it will have life-or-death consequences. | ||
| do,farrell | chpt 12 ....... how and the hell will you heat a place in buffalo when its 20 degrees it would require a few thousands of amps of current to do the job . the grid could not hold it ! chpt 13 where will you get the necessary capacity to handle the overwhelming load that you would put on the grid... demand rolling blackouts or rationing ? solar and wind DO NOT AND WILL NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TO THAT . how do you store anything when the sun dont shine and the wind stops blowing.maybe nuclear might be an option chpt 16 WASTE ! first the carbon needed to build and develop "green energy " is overwhelming to say the least ! turbine blades CANNOT BE RECYCLED ! they are cut up and buried in a DAMNED LANDFILL ! solar panels crack and leach toxic materials into the groundwater. panels cant be easily recycled. think they are so GREEN https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/ a WIND TURBINE gear box requires oil changes every 3 months ,55 gallons of 90w gear oil for each .... noooo how dare you need fossil fuels . chpt 19 land use .. i know lets trade land that is needed to grow FOOD TO EAT and take it way to generate electric... yup you can eat A.C. baaa haa haa . once a solar farm gets put on land.the land cannot be EVER USED TO GROW FOOD AGAIN. toxics will enter the watershed and pollute water / bees will die from flying near them . birds will get chopped up by the turbines . the temps will rise near these solar farms ! . you never thought of that huh NYS wants to plant windmills IN LAKE ERIE ! go ahead and disturb the toxic sludge nature has covered up . pollute the water people need to live .one of them spring a seal leak there goes 50 gallons of thick oil into the water . DESTROY the gem of a fishing are ! when them turbines turn the fish will drive fish away ! .people who want to boat will not be able to go near them . IDEA surround albany with turbines,plenty of HOT AIR to keep them spinning FOREVER ! | ||
| Alexa,Spiegel | “New Yorkers support climate action and the CLCPA, with no compromises.” We want to see a full and complete transition to a clean economy by 2050, with a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040 and a clear, detailed roadmap toward a fully electrified transportation sector. “The scoping plan must be stronger on gas.” We need a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, clear deadlines for phasing out dirty energy and procuring renewables, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction, and a massive investment in getting existing homes off fossil fuels. We cannot solve this problem and meet our mandate without stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, from pipelines to power plants. “In addition, I am concerned about…” [Select talking points from any of the following documents] Energy Sector One Pager Transportation Sector One Pager Heating/Cooling/Buildings Sector One Pager Lands and Forest One Pager Waste Sector One Pager With Supporting Points: New Yorkers support climate action and the CLCPA, with no compromises. We want to see a full and complete transition to a clean economy by 2050, with a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040 and a clear, detailed roadmap toward a fully electrified transportation sector. The plan’s analysis shows that this is possible, and that we can fully phase out fossil fuel combustion. Analysis by the Climate Action Council shows that it will save New York and New Yorkers money - over $90B compared to inaction. This will also create jobs: The net job impact of a full transition would be an addition of over 189,000 jobs. It will also protect our health. Even absent the health implications of climate change, combustion – burning fuels – is a massive contributor to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. This pollution causes asthma and triggers asthma attacks; This pollution is connected with higher risks of severe outcomes from COVID-19 This pollution increases the risk of heart and lung disease. | ||
| Denise,Willard | First off, I wish the state wasn't so lazy and could "use their words" instead of acronyms. What a waste of time it was to go back and forth between the acronym pages and where I was in the document. Next, there are so many things that I am opposed to with regards to the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. What in the world is this? I love how all the stakeholders are either related to the Govenor or employed by the Governor. We've all witnessed how these types of individuals are more concerned about their $200,000+ salaries than they are with doing the right thing. Why in the world would anyone think that man-made machines, such as wind and solar, would change the climate? You know, the same climate that has been changing since the beginning of time and long before the industrial revolution. How many, if there are 341,000 world wide already and 70,800 in the United States, Industrial Wind Turbines are we going to need to do something positive to the climate? From where I am sitting, we're destroying the planet faster and the climate has gotten worse since the introduction of so called "renewable energy". I am just wondering if you are trying to make people that haven't left already, leave New York faster. I can't wait to get out of here, espcially after the last 2 years. At a time when energy cost are at an all-time high, the thought of paying significantly more is enough to set off alarm bells for most people. The climate council's plan to eliminate reliable, affordable sources of energy will only further burden New Yorkers, especially in rural communities and during harsh winter, and cutting off this dependable source of energh would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. The electrical grid can't handle what is going through it now, how is it going to handle more? Exactly where are we coming up with all this funding? I am seriously opposed to this plan. | ||
| Jacob,Siegle | I personally don’t see a issue with the use of National Fuel Gas in my area. Everything they do is top notch work. There carbon foot print and all other Gas companies are not doing nearly as much damage to this planet as the lithium mines that we use for car batteries to be able to go “Green”. There will always be a power source that is not “Green” and there not hurting this planet any more then the next. In the scheme of things just us In the US trying to do better is going to make zero impact if none of our neighbors overseas don’t do anything to help. I believe everything in NY is doing just fine. If it’s not broke don’t fix it. There’s nothing to fix. And a pipe line being put in/finished creates a much better view of things unlike a giant crater in the ground for Lithium. | ||
| Eric ,Guest | It is absurd you want to ban natural gas when it is the cheapest way we heat our home. The state also needs to look at our base load generation for electricity. Closing indian point nuclear reduced our base load generation by 2000 mw which to my knowledge we have not replaced. The politicians are setting up New York for failure | ||
| Evelina,Torres | |||
| Tom,Rhoads | NA | Thank you to the members of the Climate Council for the determined effort to design a plan to deal with the important work needed to resolve the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. May these comments please be considered and incorporated in the final plan for New York State: | |
| Heather,Stanton | Team Coordinator Chemung County M other's Out Front | I want to see a full and complete transition to a clean economy by 2050, with a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040 and a clear, detailed roadmap toward a fully electrified transportation sector. The scoping plan must be stronger on gas. We need a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, clear deadlines for phasing out dirty energy and procuring renewables, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction, and a massive investment in getting existing homes off fossil fuels. We cannot solve this problem and meet our mandate without stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, from pipelines to power plants. Why? I have a 22 year old son and an 18 year old son. My children know what’s potentially in store for them with regard to Climate Change within their lifetimes. My older son is a math/science guy and he has taken a science class on Climate Change at the University at Buffalo. This past December, I found him lying on his bed, looking very depressed. “The Earth is Dying,” he said. What could I say to him? So far, there is hardly any comfort to offer. Of course the Earth is not literally dying, but the livable Climate we need to support our VERY SURVIVAL is in mortal peril, and more so with every passing day. How can we let this happen to our children, or to ourselves in our golden years? I know that people who work in the fossil fuel industry are concerned about their jobs. My younger son has several friends who work at a gas station. I get it. I completely support workforce development for green jobs in renewables, especially for former fossil fuel workers. But I will also remind you that there are no jobs on a DEAD planet (or one in which the livable climate is dead). None of us are safe in our jobs if continuous severe weather events are repeatedly destroying our agriculture, our property, and our economy. And so I agree strongly with the above noted actions now. We are rapidly running out of time! | |
| Denise ,Androvette | CNNY Sierra Club | I call upon our state to stop the fossil fuel corporations, National Grid, and the Koch industries to set the agenda for moving our state forward to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We MUST utilize the climate heathy options: wind, solar, geo-thermal, and hydro generated electricity that are all available in our state. As a property owner in the Town of Salina, I have done my part. I have upgraded to heat pumps to heat and cool my home. Dismantling my natural gas connection makes my neighborhood safer and demonstrates my commitment to the climate agenda. There needs to be more investment in NYSERDA to help homeowners to be able to afford this option. We must reach a critical mass of participation to make a difference. New construction must use these climate preserving heating and cooling technologies-as our neighbors in New England are doing. There will never be “safe” gas options as National Grid would like the public to believe. Its the same as saying nuclear energy is a safe option. Please hear the concerns of regular constituents-do not slow the process. Our lives depend on it. | |
| Denise,Katzman | StopPowCryptoNY | TY NYSERDA for supporting clean resilient energy All forms of mining, including Bitcoin POW BP, require legal regulation in NYS. Gov Kathy is simultaneously allowing the violation of the following: CAC, CLCPA, NYS’ participation with the Paris Agreement & the Federal Clean H2O. There’s a cost to political cowardice by blatantly avoiding her legal and fiduciary responsibility to regulate this sector. Minus regulation: BP creates massive anthropogenic pollution via the intense number of servers that last 1.5 years, are toxic & can’t be re or up-cycled. Where the heck will the servers end up? Whatever energy source BP uses, energy theft has happened & will continue to impact constituents; due to the colossal energy appetite that servers demand. This out of control increase was created by Bitmain, opening the insatiable desire to expand rapid server use. Currency volatility CV relates to BP & Blockchain, BP & BC. Both don’t give a damn about Central Bank regulations, the DOJ’s 1st Regulator NTL Crypto Enforcement Team, the FBI announced a new Crypto Unit & NYS has a brand new Bill: Establishes the offenses of virtual token fraud S8839 & A8820. 4.19.22 Bloomberg Crypto: Crypto needs a Sheriff and Blockchain has no Overlord. BP & BC adore decentralization of our finance sector & DAOs. 4.17.22: Beanstalk’s 182 million hack. The only way to end CV is POS CBDC. The Gov, we don’t want to miss a BP & BC opportunity. She is categorically wrong about their age. Focus on what’s truly new & protective, POS CBDC I'm pro-economic innovation to create sustainable workforces and utilizing AI. Server automation permits BP facilities to hire under 20 workers. The majority are independent contractors. This is the opposite of sustainable workforces. NYS perpetuates its public comment counting constipation: Cornell faculty did more to remedy the counting, within 24 hours, than NYS has done since 12.2021 NYS & Community Geothermal CG. The DOE has $84 million to enhance CG. Crush It | |
| Stuart,Saulters | APGA | The American Public Gas Association (APGA) is pleased to provide comments on the state of New York’s Draft Scoping Plan. APGA is the trade association representing more than 730 communities across the U.S. that own and operate their retail natural gas distribution entities. Public gas systems, including in New York Woodhull Municipal Gas Company and the Village of Hamilton, are not-for-profit and locally accountable to the citizens they serve. They provide safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy to their customers and support their communities by delivering fuel to be used for cooking, clothes drying, and space and water heating, as well as for various commercial and industrial applications. Woodhull Municipal Gas Company and the Village of Hamilton, along with every APGA member, are good stewards of the environment, evidenced by the way they maintain and operate their utilities, and they recognize that natural gas can provide energy affordably and reliably to New York’s residents and all Americans, in addition to proven environmental benefits. APGA is especially concerned with potential impacts from the Draft Scoping Plan. Natural gas and the infrastructure APGA members operate should be a part of New York’s clean energy future for the following reasons: Ensure Energy Resiliency, Deliver Affordability, and Play an Important Role in a Low Carbon Future. APGA would like to reiterate that Woodhull Municipal Gas Company, the Village of Hamilton, and all our members are committed to providing reliable and affordable energy, while protecting the environment with minimal disruption to consumer choice. As the state pursues its emission reduction policies, APGA requests consideration of the unique operating circumstances of New York’s public gas utilities and encourages the continued utilization of their valuable infrastructure and experienced workforce in achieving the state’s clean energy goals. | |
| Kimberly,Maras | Self Employed | We often experience "unscheduled" electric outages and often have no electricity after a big storm goes through which sometimes can be a few days BEFORE electricity is restored to the area. I have never experienced an "unscheduled" gas outage in my home or in my vehicle. I just recently switched my electric hot water, furnace and air conditioner to natural gas for the cost savings! Making our state dependent only on electric is setting us up for an overburdened electrical system, that will fail often and leave many, many, peoples basic needs not being met. Moreover, by becoming all electric dependent, the electric companies can skyrocket our electric bills and we will have no choice but to pay them or to live without basic needs being met in our homes. New York State is setting up its citizens for failure. NYS is not forward thinking on how to best take care of those who live here. NYS population is decreasing based on the last census and it's because of the uncaring, unprofessional, paid off people running the state into the ground. | |
| Neil,Tingwall | You are forcing more people to pack up and leave this state with your poor policy. We are already overtaxed and you want to punish us more just for trying to heat our homes in the winter. I spent 456 dollars for a 100 gallons of fuel oil . I use to pay around 300 to fill my tank . Stop punishing the hard working people of this state for a pie in the sky green new deal . The technology is not here. You are going to run the people that pay the taxes in this state out . I already know a lot of people that have left for friendly states and a lot of others teetering. | ||
| Michael,Becker | Democracy Matters at UAlbany | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. My name is Michael Becker. I am a freshman at the University of Albany, but I was born in raised on the Lower East Side in New York City. I remember when my neighborhood, like many, lost power for a week during Hurricane Sandy. I remember trudging up 15 flights of stairs with my parents to bring food (sometimes National Guard-provided rations) to my grandfather down the street from our apartment. And I've watched as my city prepares to spend $1.4 billion and cut down thousands of trees in East River Park in order to prepare to create a seawall in my neighborhood, anticipating more storms like Sandy. For all this, I am lucky. I'm not in a community that's still rebuilding after Sandy all these years later. And I'm not in one of the communities who so often go unheard; one of the communities the government won't spend $1.4 billion to protect. And yet I've already learned that climate change is far from an abstract issue, or something approaching in the distant future. I've submitted separate comments through environmental organizations on specific sections of the plan. But I felt I should submit a comment on how I view this issue, and why I feel so strongly about the need for action. | |
| Cole,Burkhardt | Democracy Matters | Hi My name is Cole Burkhardt. I am a senior at the University at Albany and a member of Democracy Matters. I aprove of the changes proposed to transportation in the draft plan. Specifically I support the focus to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy for our public transportation systems. I believe that it is in all of New York's interest to maintain the goal of By 2030 nearly 100% of LDV sales and 40% or more of MHD vehicle sales have to be ZEVs. The aim to significantly increase the availability of public transportation in urban areas will help to reduce VMT, but I think it is equally as important if not even more important to increase the availability of public transportation in suburban areas as well. Not only to reduce the total VMT but also to finally help those in disenfranchised communities be treated as equalls when it comes to available transportation. I am from Long Island and our system of public transportation is practically nonexistent if there are any busses available they are often worse than in cities like Albany and have much less consistent schedules. There are members of our communities who having accessible public transportation would be life changing opposed to their situation now, which I have seen plenty of older coworkers have to do, of walking miles along the side of busy roads and highways to get to and from jobs. Long Island desperately needs affordable and accessible public transportation and adding ZEV MHD's to our public transit system would have the added benefit of helping in the fight against climate change. Thank You for your time and consideration. | |
| Barbara,Buck | Democracy Matters | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. My name is Barbara, and I live in Penfield, New York. I would firstly like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. I am here today to briefly share my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan and offer specific recommendations to help ensure the Climate Action Council prepares the strongest final plan for my community and New York State. New Yorkers are already facing the impacts of climate change, like more intense and frequent storms (i.e., more super storms like Hurricanes Ida and Sandy), changing seasons that impact New York’s agriculture sector, and dangerous heat spikes in the summers. Low-income communities and communities of color are suffering even more from harmful pollution from the reliance of our economy on fossil fuels. In sum, the faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. The Final Scoping Plan should prioritize the use of on-site biogas over strategies that use Anaerobic Digesters for biogas or biomass for energy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on farms. For waste justice and climate justice to be reflected in the final plan, the state should not permit any subsidies, nor permit new incinerators, or incineration/burning by other names (inc.pyrolysis, gasification). The draft plan’s “Explore Technology Solutions” section is largely problematic for expanding renewable natural gas, green hydrogen, and nuclear as answers to long duration storage. I join the CJWG in expressing strong concern about the emerging technologies mentioned plus waste-to energy and bioenergy, as they can lead to the production of more greenhouse gas emissions. | |
| Julia,Ross-McGuire | UAlbany Democracy Matters | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. My name is Julia Ross-McGuire and I live in Canandaigua, New York. I would firstly like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. Public health and economic benefits. Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. The faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. Agriculture, the draft plan does not go far enough to reduce emissions from controlled animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The Final Scoping Plan should prioritize the use of on-site biogas over strategies that use Anaerobic Digesters for biogas or biomass for energy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on farms. Waste, I am pleased to see the inclusion of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies for difficult-to-manage products and materials; however, the Final Scoping Plan needs more prescriptive EPR policy recommendations. EPR policies for plastic and paper packaging require manufacturers to standardize recycling labels and require a percentage of post-consumer content in products. Manufacturers should be required to follow standards that consider environmental justice impacts in hazardous waste disposal. Buildings, I strongly support the draft plan’s proposed ban on any fossil fuels in new single-family homes and low-rise residential units built by 2024 and all buildings by 2027 as well as advanced energy building codes for new and renovated residential and commercial buildings. | |
| Emily,Lyons | UAlbany Democracy Matters | My name is Emily Lyons and I am currently a sophomore at the University at Albany. I am expressing my support for the draft scoping plan and also pointing out some areas which I feel are lacking. The draft plan does not go far enough to reduce emissions from controlled animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and industrial agriculture. The strategies outlined in the draft plan rely heavily on technical assistance and cost-share programs to achieve methane reductions from manure management. I support the Climate Justice Working Group recommendation which favors imposing regulations on dairy and other livestock farmers to reduce emissions. I strongly support the draft plan’s proposed ban on any fossil fuels in new single-family homes and low-rise residential units built by 2024 and all buildings by 2027 as well as advanced energy building codes for new and renovated residential and commercial buildings. The draft plan prioritizes supporting and creating landfill and biogas markets and recycling markets as opposed to reducing waste in the first place, the final plan needs guardrails on the “limited and beneficial use” of biogas. The Final Scoping Plan should state explicitly that biogas captured from waste should be limited to on-site use and no new transmission infrastructure should be allowed to support additional biogas. Overall I think the plan is great and addresses the many climate issues New York faces. Addressing some of the areas that are lacking will make the plan even more effective. | |
| Jude,Klein | Democracy Matters at SUNY Albany | I wish this plan included more about public transportation. Many places in New York are not readily accessible by walking, biking, or public transit, which means New Yorkers often default to driving, which increases pollution. | |
| Bernard,Reed | You need many more grants / incentives to convert and do it over larger period of time. You will cause more problems than what you are trying to solve. Use your brains | ||
| Daniel,Meyers | We need leadership to combat all these ridiculous climate changes ,we all know it's just a money grab while we become green other countries make the parts for solar panels and windmills using fossils fuels while while filling there pockets with money what's wrong with nuclear or water power we all know these un thought out ideas are going to ruin our country kill the middle class and make the rich even richer ,we the people are tired of having this crammed down our throats we are becoming more and more of a communist country wake up and use common sense instead of worrying about your pay checks | ||
| Margaret,Tomlinson | I strongly support the objectives of the Draft Scoping Plan in eliminating fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible as soon as reasonably possible. As a resident of Greene County, NY, I was dismayed to read about our Greene County Legislature's objections to the Plan. Although a few of the provisions in the Draft Plan may be problematic for rural communities, I would hope the Climate Action Council can address these without gutting the overall purposes and effectiveness of the Plan. Worldwide, we are already experiencing disastrous effects from climate change, and the time to eliminate carbon-emitting fossil fuels is already long past--we cannot afford further delay. In particular, I strongly support mandates rather than voluntary compliance goals. Back in the 1970s when I was a high school student and the first Earth Day was celebrated, I believed that gas-powered cars and trucks would be entirely phased out, not just in my lifetime, but within a few years. The world would be better off if that had happened. Since it has not, let's get started now on achieving this goal as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the Climate Action Council for its hard work on the Draft Scoping Plan. | ||
| Niki,Castellaneta | Living in rural NY, the thought of not being able to burn wood or wood products doesn’t even make sense. My family owns approximately 250acres of land. Most is zoned as agricultural. Some of that land is wooded. Old dead timber needs to be cleaned out of the woods to promote new growth as well as other environmental reasons. We use wood stoves to supplement our heat in the cold months (approx. 8mos out of the year). This is necessary as company’s like NYSEG monopolize the market and their prices are continuing to get worse. In the summer, we also sell wood to supplement income. This is just a couple of examples but this state is getting ridiculous with its “wokeness” and forgetting the average people, yet again. | ||
| Joan ,Washburn | This Climate plan upends your constituents' lives. New Yorkers did not put people in office to find ways to ruin ours and our children and grandchildren's lives and futures. If you feel you must "do something about the environment" why don't you start at your own home, you stop traveling, you start eating bugs, you turn off you heat, you start cooking without electric, gas or wood. This "rules for thee but not for me" mentality is evil beyond belief. There is no solid evidence behind these climate claims. First, it was the threat that we would have another ice age (back in the 40's) and it has continued to morph into different things up to our current day. We are long past the Gore date for our eminent destruction. This has always been about controlling people who are sovereign, according to God and our Law of the land, The Constitution. I don't know at this time who on this committee is profiting by instituting these things but know this, you will one day answer to your creator for oppressing our God given freedoms. I vehemently oppose these measures you are trying to foist upon us. You will freeze and starve out all manner of people if you pursue such proposals. We are already burdened to the max by the bills that you pass in the middle of the night, while you continue to live of your taxes in grand style. | ||
| Anne,Conway | First, thank you to everyone who has worked to create this expansive plan. It is very impressive. In order to significantly reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to meet our climate goals, I would strongly recommend a PRICE ON CARBON. The most effective would be a fee on the source of fossil fee that would start low and gradually rise each year. Most of the revenue collected should be returned to low and middle income households. This carbon fee and dividend plan has been recommended by major economists and has been effectively used in other countries to reduce greenhouse gases. | ||
| Jeff,E | The proposal is one sided and does not address several basic problems. There needs to be more involvement from engineering and technical folks that actually understand the energy industry. 1) The working class population of New York will simply leave the state if forced to bear the costs of the installing or updating their home heating systems to a state approved electric system. 2) Electricity is generated, and therefore is not zero emissions as suggested throughout. One must consider how electricity is produced in the first place. 3) Natural gas and propane - 2 common home heating sources are clean burning and can be modified for the use of blue fuel (hydrogens mixtures). Modern day modulating condensing furnaces and boilers commonly operate at 90+% fuel input / heat output efficiencies. 4) The existing electrical grid cannot support 100% electric! 5) It appears the proposal was modeled around urban environments and cities. Walking and riding bicycle make good common sense in an urban environment. This is not true of the rural communities of New York. 6) An electric only state would eliminate many industries, jobs, and leave only one energy source as an options. One can observe based on history how no competition leads to price gouging. | ||
| Mina,Hoblitz | The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce | ||
| Stephanie ,Milks | I am OPPOSED to the the sole reliance on electricity for appliances, cars and heat sources. Putting all of your eggs in 1 basket is a disaster waiting to happen. It is expensive and it is unrealistic. Wind and solar are UNreliable sources of electricity and will never produce the amount needed to power a huge increase in demand when you add in the need for every household to go all electric. Where is the long term planning!? If you are concerned about climate change, you also need to be concerned about more power outages which then required alternative fuels for heat and cooking and transportation. You will strand people if the power goes out and they can’t charge their car battery or freeze children in their homes or kill those that rely on medical machines for life support among a long list of other negative impacts. Where is the acknowledgement of all of the negative impacts!? Wind and solar are prohibitively expensive along with electric vehicles and the electric bills. You will harm the low income families of NYS. Where is the concern for long term cost!? Where is the tree conservation? You are chopping down thousands of acres of trees in just 1 project. Trees absorb carbon. Nearly 2,000 acres will be coming out of the Alle-Catt project alone. On a very conservative calculation, that will leave well over 30 million pounds of carbon hanging in the atmosphere with no way to be absorbed at the same time the manufacturing of these NON-renewable monstrosities that are made of NON renewable metals and materials and require further mining and manufacturing destruction. Wind and solar are extremely inefficient, cost prohibitive, environmentally destructive and will NEVER produce what consumers demand. Stop the acceleration of this disaster waiting to happen and promote conservation. | ||
| Jennifer ,Rivier | Jennifer RIvier Enterprise | ||
| Jamie,Anderluh | Chapter 15, Agriculture and Forestry, could be improved with a more extensive discussion of food security, sovereignty, and justice. While food security is discussed, key terms like food sovereignty and food justice are not included in the chapter. These terms are crucial because if we are to make climate smart farming a reality, it needs to be done so in a way that makes food more accessible and culturally appropriate. Importantly, terms like food justice and food sovereignty go beyond food security: they maintain that not only should our food system be more secure (i.e. provide sufficient, consistent food) – it should also be sovereign (i.e. community-defined and led) and just (i.e. promoting the agency and empowerment of marginalized groups). Though there is a chapter devoted to climate justice, it’s essential that ideas of justice are also represented in Chapter 15, as food and nourishment are human rights. These ideas could be focused within a section under “Key Sector Strategies”. Though food security is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter: “The recommendations listed in this chapter provide long-term, integrated approaches to achieving GHG emissions reductions while also ensuring food security…” (p. 197), what is not mentioned is how such a goal will be made a reality. This is also true in section AF17, in which the importance of local agricultural economies is discussed. Food security is mentioned here: “Climate impacts, as well as COVID-19 impacts, have shown an elevated importance in the need for food security,” (p. 222). Though food security is mentioned, it’s unclear how it will be specifically addressed and prioritized. To prioritize food security, we need not only to support local agricultural economies, but also to support specific initiatives to increase food access. From there, food justice and sovereignty can also be addressed. | ||
| miriam,hoffman | divest ny | It has been a long time since the CLCPA has been passed - the concept is awesome - but it needs implementation. And the clock has been ticking. I have been totally clueless why so little was passed in the legislature re: climate. My guess - that the Fossil Fuel lobby has been active and sprinkling money around just like they have been doing in Washington - and especially in West Virginia. NY is smarter than this. Our climate is changing before our eyes - 100 year floods, tornados, hurricanes are costing huge amounts of damage and heartbreak in New York, and the expectation is it will get worse and worse. I am 75 - but what about my children who are in their 40s and my grandchildren who are pre-adolescents and adolescents. This is meant to be a long term plan - yet you are being distracted by shiny objects fossil fuel companies are bribing you with. It is time to "Come to Jesus" I love that expression. To me it means - time to tell it like it is and face the music - and make the right choices - would Jesus just sit on his hands and avert his eyes. That is what you need to do in the legislature - be Climate Leaders - There is no Planet B, as they say. As you know this bill has many facets. My biggest priority is the Sacrifice Zones - the communities like Newburgh that have been choked by industry, traffic, pollution, heavy transportation and can't get a break. COVID showed us all what happens to health in communities who have chronic environmental toxins in their air and water. It is time to recognize that racial justice is climate justice and ignoring the needs of Indigenous communities, low income communities, you are continuing a racist system that must end. Stand Up for the Planet. Don't you hear the students. I hear the Youth Climate Leaders all the time at DivestNY and they get it - their lives have been held hostage by those who ignore Climate Injustice. Act like Grownups we can rely on - Thank You. | |
| Philip,Sisser | Cornell University | ||
| Bryan,Swift | please see attached | has attachment | |
| Mia ,Somers | Burning wood to heat a home is a necessary and primary source of heat for thousands of New Yorkers. Many are able to harvest wood at minimal cost allowing them to have heat when they may otherwise not. The price of propane and fuel heat is beyond the reach for some. The ability to burn wood for heat is economical and efficient for many New Yorkers. I believe it is imperative to the health and well being of New Yorkers to not put a ban or restrictions on wood burning stoves. | ||
| Stephanie,Sparvero | This plan is not based in any sort of reality. I didn't know which section to call out, specifically, so I checked them all. I will limit my comments to just a few obvious misunderstandings of economic and scientific reality that will cripple the economy of the state and New York City, inflicting the most pain on the poor. 1) There is no feasible way for utility companies to produce 70% of energy through non-fossil fuels by 2030, or 100% by 2040. Current renewable energy sources comprise about 6% of total energy production: Hydropower comprises 80% of renewable energy, and is maxed out. That would mean that wind and solar energy would need to make up the rest of the requirement, and even the most gigantic wind farm and solar panel network will not be able to make enough energy for the state. 2) The prohibition of gas in new construction and the phasing out of it in old construction will make winters unbearable for low-income residents. Rolling blackouts and days without heat now typify New England winters due green policy. Fossil fuels are the most reliable and cheapest source for people to use. And as you are well aware, people who have low incomes have the most to lose, as demonstrated by a tragic fire in NYC this year, caused by a space heater. The cost for electric or induction appliances in homes is significantly higher and so is the wiring necessary to run them. People don't have that money. 3) Prohibiting sales of gasoline-powered lawn equipment and automobiles will adversely affect the economy in New York, and neighboring states will benefit. People will not stop using this equipment, due to its efficiency and convenience, and so they will seek to buy it elsewhere. This will take the money that would otherwise go to businesses within New York state and make it go to businesses in those states. Stephanie Sparvero | ||
| Janice,Michael | This whole climate change is a bunch of bunk. The earth has been undergoing change since the beginning. If you really want to do the right thing plant trees. I have researched turbines as an example and they aren't green at all and are a public health menace. We don't have infrastructure for additional electric. People can't afford all of this. You have forced us to move to another state. | ||
| Frank,Isele | |||
| Deborah,Rhea | I support this plan in its entirety and urge the legislature to move forward even more quickly than proposed. | ||
| William ,Livingston | There are no benefits!! We can't take a subway or bus to work or errands. The people who are trying to force this on us have no idea what they are doing. In rural areas everything agriculture related runs on fuel . Trucks run on fuel. The electric grid cannot handle air conditioning in the summer and yet we can plug in cars to charge. If farmers can't plow plant and harvest and Trucks can't haul to market, be alot of hungry and very unhappy voters | ||
| Daniel,Austin | This does not go far enough. Also, Rob Ortt is a lying ******. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | My daughter suffers from asthma as a direct result of air pollution. She has moved to the Adirondacks where the air is cleaner and is doing much better. Not everyone can move away from air pollution. We need to keep our air clean for everyone. Clean energy technology is already here. We need spend our time and money developing clean energy now. STOP wasting New Yorker money on polluting fossil fuel projects, they will become stranded assets in the near future. If we continue to allow polluting projects, New Yorkers healthcare needs will increase costing New York families millions of dollars. I know because my daughter suffers from asthma and it has cost our family a lot. Also, the pollution is causing climate change resulting in intense storms. The last storm I removed 120 gallons out of my basement. It has never been that bad before. Many of my neighbors fared much worse. Please transition to clean energy as soon as possible. Elaine Weir 138 Brewster Road Scarsdale, NY 10583 | ||
| Dianne,Sefcik | See uploaded file | has attachment | |
| Alan,Turner | I strongly disagree will all aspects of this plan. A premise taken that changes in use of fossil fuels in NYS will result in world wide impacts on the climate is foolish and impossible. The most predictable result will be financial pain for the tax payers of NYS. Everything will be more expensive. Natural gas has been the preferred energy source for heat in buildings for decades because it is the most energy efficient means to create heat, and therefore, the least expensive available. It also has the greatest reliability as natural gas service is rarely interrupted. Heating appliances are now commonly 90% or greater in energy efficiency. Burning of natural gas in these appliances also discharges a very small amount of air pollution. Therefore, outlawing these appliances is a terrible idea. If NYS bans the sale of these and other gas appliances, the existing homes will need to get upgraded electric service, upgraded panel boxes, and new wiring within the home to provide 220 Volt service to the appliance location. This is NOT practical. Who is going to pay for these upgrades? Will it be up to taxpayers to subsidize these upgrades in other people's homes? NYS wants to ban the sale of non-electric vehicles. This is a disastrous idea! The gas engine is the power that moves American's. We have abundant oil reserves in North American and we should continue to use as much of it as we possibly can. When foolish people suggest life without oil, I'd like them to live one hour of one day without it. Virtually everything we touch every minute of the day has roots in a barrel of oil. Gasoline, is only one of thousands of by-products from oil. Where do these fools think the Lithium to make the batteries is coming from? Its mined from the Earth, in far away waste lands in China and other countries that have ZERO environmental responsibility. NYS should stop trying to be an extreme political organization which dictates to its citizens how they must live. | ||
| David ,Notaro | The CAC has released a blueprint to alter the state’s energy plans, which includes: ¯ No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; ¯ No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; ¯ No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; ¯ No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; ¯ Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and ¯ Installing geothermal heating by 2040. Until you build a reliable source of electricity generation such as Nuclear or some other source like it, you will never generate enough to power for your goal of an all electric state. Also, forcing home owners to switch to all electric, will definitely be a burden on those people. I envision Mandates, Fines, Laws for anyone who doesn’t comply. I envision brownouts when everyone plugs their devices in. Or we will be allowed to use a certain amount of daily electricity with an option to use more but at a higher cost. Those of us who still own gas powered vehicles after 2035 will be able to buy gasoline but at unheard of prices. A slower pace to get where we want to be would be prudent. | ||
| Richard,Edson | Sir/Ma'am, There is a comment period for this but you will implement it regardless of our wants? We all want to leave a cleaner footprint, but... No offense, but I understand you want recommendations to make it a more efficient agenda, but that's where it ends. The majority of people I have spoken to are against it. They tell me they are not looking forward to being forced to go green in the name of "climate justice". Or regulating wood stoves, banning gas powered vehicles, just to name a few. "Eliminating methane emissions" across the state is a bold statement, considering it will change everything in our lives as we know it. Not for the good. It all comes down to indoctrinating "social/climate justice" in the minds of those who cannot leave NY, as well as the next generation. Who would read 300+ pages of the law? Noone, that's who. Just feed them the words you want them to hear, along with free social welfare items tucked in the law (ie: free internet, new green vehicles/manufacturer plant jobs, "energy efficient interventions" et al), and they will feel good about it. | ||
| Jem,Reandeau Azar | I firmly disagree with your plan to go green, we do not have the technology for this. All you will do is further destroy our economy in New York. The lower income family’s cannot afford your grandiose plan. People are already leaving this state and you can expect more of the same as you push your unattainable agenda. This state needs better leadership and you are not it. | ||
| Andrea,Harvey | Parkland Professional Park | I am utterly opposed to electric heating in both commercial and residential buildings as our current infrastructure does not support this | |
| Roger,Caiazza | The attached comments document my verbal presentation at the Syracuse public hearing on April 26, 2022. Because public comm ents were limited to two minutes, I could not provide references and backup information for my statements. These comments list the verbal testimony and detailed documentation. | has attachment | |
| Barry,Klimuszka | Personal | This entire proposal's information is skewed by the special interest group pushing this proposal. It certainly does not include opinions from outside this proposal process. This does not take into effect the costs that each family will have to incur to change/swap out each appliance and power sources when natural gas appliances (stove/oven, clothes dryers, furnaces, etc.) are no longer available. Also the cost to families that may not be able to convert from gasoline to electric cars. Also what has been looked into supplying the increase on out electric power grid when there is a large increase for electricity when natural gas and gasoline can no longer be used. We do not have the generating capacity in NYS to cover this extra demand. Sorry, Solar is not very efficient in our northern latitude in the winter when we need the extra heating demand and Wind cannot cover the extra demand either. Why does government have to mandate these ideas vs. letting our NYS residents choose for themselves based on what they believe. This will continue to push more NTS residents out of the state. | |
| Shannon,Gedamoske | This bill is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. You're making people rely on an already fragile system so you can pat yourself on the back and say you did something for the climate. These policies and the hoards of taxes you continue to push on us are the reason people are fleeing this state in droves. | ||
| Marthe,Schulwolf | N/A | New York's CLCPA is an impressive achievement, but it will be meaningless if it isn't implemented. Implementation requires clear, specific goals, regulations, and policies. As always, "the devil is in the details." It will take true leadership and commitment to move us forward. There will be resistance from those with vested interests who care only about immediate profits and are terrified of change. But change is the law of the universe. We MUST change and we MUST change for the better. We must fully commit to clean energy, both for climate survival and for our public health. 1) We need to create a detailed plan that immediately puts a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, focuses on permitting renewable energy creation and increasing battery storage, and makes plans to shut down fossil fuel based plants. 2) We need regulations and incentives that support transitioning older buildings to renewable energy and require new buildings to rely on renewable energy and include energy saving measures. 3) We need to transition transportation from fossil fuel technology to renewable technologies. It is shocking that school buses continue to expose children to diesel fumes - children are our most precious resource and their health and welfare should come first. This is also an issue of environmental justice, as the wealthy can provide their own transportation, but the poor are dependent upon what's available. Electric school buses should be a no-brainer! 4) We need incentives and support for municipalities re land use, waste reduction, recycling, composting, etc. Natural gas is not clean energy, it is not renewable energy, and fracking is extremely destructive to the environment and public health. We have to transition away from gas. Please do not let the fossil fuel lobby dictate public policy! Please lead us with courage and determination into a more sustainable, healthier, and climate-safe future! | |
| Ron,Donoftio | Main Street Hudson Valley, zinc | Every state vehicle every garbage truck everything that has to do with anything for local transportation should either be electric or hydrogen based saying that they are short trips electric is perfect for it and so is hydrogen how the state is it doing that now is a crime. Also every public building every public school every department building that’s an every city in town should have solar panels and winter binds this way it all sets all of the cost for power through all immunicipalities in the state and that could be a great savings to all the residents of New York where their taxes include payments for all the government buildings and schools for power this is a simple solution and it should be done immediately. | |
| Nathan,Gunn | 1- If we move to all-electric heat for buildings and EV for transport during the timeline proposed - WHERE DOES ALL THE POWER COME FROM? Nowhere in your documents do you describe the power source. WHAT IS THE POWER SOURCE for all this electricity? 2 - Can you please describe the ethics and environmental impact of Lithium Mining? I do not see any information in your Plan that describes the environmental degradations caused in Lithium mining and/or the extensive use of child and slave (endentured servant) labor to mine Lithium. 3 - Back-up / Supplemental: What happens to our energy intastructure when solar, wind and other electrial grid sources fail (they will fail) or when power lines are down/damaged. How does this dependence on power lines reponsd to climate change in regards to power outages? How will urban areas be affected when homes may be without heat from electricity for days at a time? 4 - Please comment on the increased carbon footprint from the creation of EV compared to traditional vehicles. EV's are made of materials (plastic) that are petroleum based and range in 3-8X more carbon footprint in production. 5 - As NYS reduces the availability of gas stations, are New Yorkers aware that driving limits will be reduced to hundreds of miles with large times dedicated for recharge? How will NYC and Manhattan be impacted? What about the impact of people stuck in winter weather? What about the reduced-charge effect from cold weather? Will honest information be provided regarding the user experience and risks involved with cold weather EV transport? What is the assessment in loss of economic activity when trucks that cross through NYS and deliver to NYS can no longer access gasoline with convenience? | ||
| Mary Ann,Schifitto | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. In addition, the State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. I support legislative measures to ban CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. No further consideration should be given to logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments. | ||
| Robert ,Demallie | |||
| ralph,desiderio | I find it strange that a climate committee is addressing a health concern when it comes to burning wood products. Is the NYS department of health to busy? That said, if you want to make Upstate NY residence stop burning wood, address the reason why they are burning wood. And the most likely reason is because they cannot afford a more cleaner and efficient source to heat their homes. IF you want them to stop burning wood, make them richer. I am pretty sure most of them would love to not have to constantly feed their wood burning stove, pellet stove, or their outside furnace with a wood product. Why not try and bring higher paying jobs to upstate NY? $20 an hour for a solar panel installers is just not going to do it. So if you truly want to reduce wood burning, increase the peoples wealth. | ||
| Emilia ,Vella | |||
| Scott,Puller | 14760 | What is driving climate change more than any other factor? Energy Demand. Why is the energy demand increasing? Population Increases? Dense urban populations? Changes in lifestyle from farming to manufacturing to technology based economies? The state of New York cannot deal with extreme weather events as stated in 2.1 and the scoping plan proposes for the state to become even more dependent on electrical energy? That is a true set-up for unprecedent economic disaster. Natural gas can provide heat to homes and businesses, even when the electrical utility grid is down. Natural gas can be stored under ground. It does not require the development of battery storage components. There are not wide spread natural gas outages like there are for electrical outages. Mandating that New York State eliminate the use of fossil fuel to create a ,fictitious, "better world" for its residents is completely irresponsible and an abuse of power for furthering a misguided agenda. All sources of energy will be required to support the ever increasing demand generated by an ever increasing world population but none of it is sustainable. Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth's history. It is going to take such a large scale event to reset the climate. The proposed measures will be nothing more than a costly increase to consumers. | |
| John,Keevert | The Land Use chapter is mostly commendable, thank the contributors. I appreciate the recommendations for updated NYS land use maps showing priority forest and natural areas, and making them available for land use planning and benchmarking. The scoping plan’s recommendations will help identify those lands and coastal areas that are most appropriate for renewable energy siting. Local and government incentives, developer mandates and direct purchase are needed to maximize the amount of land that can be used for reforestation. The State should promote and incentivize transit-oriented growth and smart growth projects. These projects would provide important benefits such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled, protecting agricultural and forest lands from development, improving health through alternative transportation (walking, biking), and helping low-income households that do not have access to cars. Also valuable is continued preservation and restoration of marine and estuary habitats for the ecosystem services they provide, including food production and flood protection. To protect our forests, plans for sustainable logging practices are critical and must be developed, legislated and enforced. Please expand preventive measures to limit the arrival of invasive species and to deal with existing invasive species, emphasizing impact on forest health and reforestation efforts. I understand that to make reforestation efforts effective, deer overgrazing must be minimized through culling programs. Eliminate cap+trade of forests, we need CO2 reduction now, not in 100 years. | ||
| John,Keevert | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. The State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives to reduce methane, such as red seaweed, and implement positive findings. We need additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions with grants + technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to spur manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations are harmful. Support legislative measures to ban large CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to allow this regulation of CAFOs. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. Question logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven via detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. Overall goal is reducing GHGs via ending combustion of carbonaceous materials. | ||
| Sharon,Murphy | I strongly support the plan and its attunement to public health. As a long time nurse, health sciences librarian, and avid cyclist and city dweller, I endorse the well-researched, thoughtful and meaningful recommendations and strategies to help us and our communities thrive and to mitigate known health concerns. The plan put forward, especially in these sections, is evidence-based and compelling. And yes, we need attention on active transportation systems which have positive ripple effects. I endorse it with great enthusiasm. | ||
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State, including: o till-free planting, o crop rotation, o use of cover crops, o livestock integration, o rotational grazing, o minimizing soil disturbance, o smart crop surveillance o minimize or eliminate use of fertilizers and pesticides The State should incentivize farmers to grow more for the local market. Promote precision feeding and herd management to reduce methane. Support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. Ban CAFO’s or at a minimum impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s Enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. Amend the “Right to Farm'' to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan Block logging for carbon sequestration purposes until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. | |
| Katie,Rygg | Color Penfield Green | The Land Use chapter was particularly well written. Kudos to those who contributed to its development. I wholeheartedly support the recommendations for updated NYS land use maps showing priority forest and natural areas, and making them available for land use planning and benchmarking. I support the scoping plan’s recommendations to identify those lands and coastal areas that are most appropriate for renewable energy siting. Local and government incentives, developer mandates and direct purchase must be implemented to maximize the amount of land that can be used for reforestation. Furthermore, the State should promote and incentivize transit-oriented growth and smart growth projects. These projects would provide important benefits such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled, protecting agricultural and forest lands from development, improving health through alternative transportation (walking, biking), and helping low-income households that do not have access to cars. I support the continued preservation and restoration of marine and estuary habitats for the ecosystem services they provide, including food production and flood protection. To protect our forests, plans for sustainable logging practices are critical and must be developed, legislated and enforced. Preventive measures to limit the arrival of invasive species and to deal with existing invasive species must be prioritized with respect to impact on forest health and reforestation efforts. Furthermore, to make reforestation efforts effective, deer overgrazing must be minimized through culling programs. | |
| Lois,Clermont | I am a resident of New York's beautiful North Country, so I have a keen awareness of both the benefits and the fragility of our environment. I wholeheartedly embrace the state's draft climate plan. I understand that I, and others, may need to suffer some hardships in order to protect the Earth from current and future challenges. I am prepared to do so, even if it is more costly. We must act now, for the sake of future generations. The challenges we face are too important to ignore. Already, we are behind in tackling the dangers to the planet that humans have created. This is no time to be thwarted by self-serving people with no foresight. I urge the Climate Action Council to remain steadfast in the scope and pace of the draft mitigation plans. Every gain enables more progress. | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Color Penfield Green | I am very grateful for our farmers. It is a profession with many challenges. Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. In addition, the State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. I support legislative measures to ban CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. No further consideration should be given to logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | The Land Use chapter was particularly well written. Kudos to those who contributed to its development. I wholeheartedly support the recommendations for updated NYS land use maps showing priority forest and natural areas, and making them available for land use planning and benchmarking. I support the scoping plan’s recommendations to identify those lands and coastal areas that are most appropriate for renewable energy siting. Local and government incentives, developer mandates and direct purchase must be implemented to maximize the amount of land that can be used for reforestation. Furthermore, the State should promote and incentivize transit-oriented growth and smart growth projects. These projects would provide important benefits such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled, protecting agricultural and forest lands from development, improving health through alternative transportation (walking, biking), and helping low-income households that do not have access to cars. I support the continued preservation and restoration of marine and estuary habitats for the ecosystem services they provide, including food production and flood protection. To protect our forests, plans for sustainable logging practices are critical and must be developed, legislated and enforced. Preventive measures to limit the arrival of invasive species and to deal with existing invasive species must be prioritized with respect to impact on forest health and reforestation efforts. Furthermore, to make reforestation efforts effective, deer overgrazing must be minimized through culling programs. | |
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | The Land Use chapter was particularly well written. Kudos to those who contributed to its development. I wholeheartedly support the recommendations for updated NYS land use maps showing priority forest and natural areas, and making them available for land use planning and benchmarking. I support the scoping plan’s recommendations to identify those lands and coastal areas that are most appropriate for renewable energy siting. Local and government incentives, developer mandates and direct purchase must be implemented to maximize the amount of land that can be used for reforestation. Furthermore, the State should promote and incentivize transit-oriented growth and smart growth projects. These projects would provide important benefits such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled, protecting agricultural and forest lands from development, improving health through alternative transportation (walking, biking), and helping low-income households that do not have access to cars. I support the continued preservation and restoration of marine and estuary habitats for the ecosystem services they provide, including food production and flood protection. To protect our forests, plans for sustainable logging practices are critical and must be developed, legislated and enforced. Preventive measures to limit the arrival of invasive species and to deal with existing invasive species must be prioritized with respect to impact on forest health and reforestation efforts. Furthermore, to make reforestation efforts effective, deer overgrazing must be minimized through culling programs. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Lou Anne | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY resident | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. In addition, the State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. I support legislative measures to ban CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. No further consideration should be given to logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | The Land Use chapter was particularly well written. Thank you to those who contributed to its development! I wholeheartedly support the recommendations for updated NYS land use maps showing priority forest and natural areas, and making them available for land use planning and benchmarking. I support the scoping plan’s recommendations to identify those lands and coastal areas that are most appropriate for renewable energy siting. Local and government incentives, developer mandates and direct purchase must be implemented to maximize the amount of land that can be used for reforestation. Furthermore, the State should promote and incentivize transit-oriented growth and smart growth projects. These projects would provide important benefits such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled, protecting agricultural and forest lands from development, improving health through alternative transportation (walking, biking), and helping low-income households that do not have access to cars. I support the continued preservation and restoration of marine and estuary habitats for the ecosystem services they provide, including food production and flood protection. To protect our forests, plans for sustainable logging practices are critical and must be developed, legislated and enforced. Preventive measures to limit the arrival of invasive species and to deal with existing invasive species must be prioritized with respect to impact on forest health and reforestation efforts. Furthermore, to make reforestation efforts effective, deer overgrazing must be minimized through programs like allowing more hunting. | ||
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. In addition, the State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. I support legislative measures to ban CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. No further consideration should be given to logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | Sustainable agricultural practices must be actively supported and incentivized throughout the State. Such practices include till-free planting, crop rotation, use of cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management that minimizes use of fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming should be incentivized, as well as adoption of agronomic principles such as those used in silvopasture. In addition, the State should incentivize farmers to adjust their crops to grow more for the local market. Methane emissions from agriculture must be reduced through promoting precision feeding and herd management. The State must also support more research into feed additives, such as red seaweed, and help drive implementation of positive findings. I support additional efforts to prevent and mitigate methane emissions through grants and technical assistance, especially to women, BIPOC and beginning farmers and through State funded loan guarantees to fund manure management systems. Unregulated emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations must be addressed. I support legislative measures to ban CAFO’s, impose a moratorium on new CAFO’s, or otherwise enforce the proper collection, treatment, and disposal of concentrated animal excrement to minimize pollution, GHG release, and pest outbreaks. The “Right to Farm'' laws must be amended to prevent abuse of farming rights. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan, and logging for carbon sequestration purposes must not be allowed. No further consideration should be given to logging for carbon sequestration until it is proven through detailed life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be forbidden, as they are not an appropriate choice for that purpose, and much more suitable feedstocks exist. | ||
| Tanvir,Khan | NYS Homes and Community Renewal | I agree with the overall CLCPA Scoping Plan to achieve the goals required by the Climate Act. As as well as reduce GHG emissions. In this scoping plan, they have identified each sector that is responsible for emitting GHG, existing mitigating strategies, these strategies, and component strategies within each theme strategy. I am glad that they took a deliberative approach to address the concerns of the vulnerable and disadvantaged communities in this scoping plan and put focus on passing required legislation, research, and funding. They have also identified agencies and stakeholders who will be responsible to implement these strategies. However, I have a few concerns and comments in some areas. I would like to see the State achieve 10 million ZEV in use by 2050. New York enacted a new law to achieve this goal last year. Although I am cautiously optimistic, but this goal may not very realistic. Our charging capability is not fast enough compared to refilling gas in cars to make people enthusiastic about buying ZEVs in millions by 2050. Therefore, State should invest in research and development of charging technologies that will reduce charging time significantly closer to refilling the gas tank. At the same time those who will use public transport also deserve high-quality amenities. But fare evasion is plaguing MTA for many years. Off-boarding fare collection technologies in Select Bus Services are making fare evasion much worse. Therefore, while providing high-quality amenities to make transportation easier to use and attractive, reducing fare evasion is also necessary. Similarly, retiring current fossil fuel-fired facilities and deploying large-scale renewable energy generation will be challenging because it may inadvertently disrupt industries and businesses throughout the state. The profitability and cost-effectiveness of these new energy generation facilities are a matter of my concern. I am also concerned about the resiliency of these facilities. | |
| Mary,Musilli | I am against the elimination of natural gas in New York State. Going all electric would put a huge financial burden on low-income residents and senior citizens. Forecasts which show the resulting electric demand could far outstrip supply, likely leading to higher prices and weakened reliability. What happens when the electric goes out either during rolling brown or black outs because our grid can’t handle demand or as it has many times during storms, and our sump pumps stop working and our basements flood or our water pipes freeze and burst causing thousand of dollars in damage to our homes? Who’s going to pay for that? And the increase in our home owner’s insurance because of flooding. Not to mention people not being able to light a natural gas fireplace and stove to stay warm and being able to cook. All because there would be no natural gas. All this law will do is cause an exodus of residents and business. I don’t think any businesses would come to New York when it would cost them far too much in energy cost. Natural gas is a reliable, affordable, and clean burning energy source. There are other options to eliminate greenhouse gases. Farmers converting to regenerative practices help sequester more carbon underground. Encourage municipalities to have community composting sites, reducing the amount of methane released into the atmosphere from landfills. Eliminating natural gas is simply a bad idea in so many ways. | ||
| James,Meehan | A one size fits all is not realistic or achievable. This is a politically motivated plan not a doable plan especially for rural areas that rely so heavily on LP gas for heat. Do the adjustment in an achievable time frame not a ridiculous proposal make for feel good and good sound bites. Keep this approach up and with the heavy tax burden and watch the exit of tax paying people increase from NY as it continues to be governed by incompetence. Respectfully submitted Jim Meehan | ||
| Andy,Hicks | The transition away from fossil fuels is extremely important for our future, both at home and globally. Comments from national grid about "fossil free" natural gas are dangerous lies just like "clean coal" and should be outright ignored. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro electric, batteries, and nuclear power generation should be the only options for consideration. A fully electric New York is an amazing goal and anything short of that is misses the target completely. A push for better infrastructure that prioritizes public transportation, walking, and cycling while deprioritizes personal vehicles/automobiles is critical as well. Please do not sell us short. We're all counting on you to get this right. | ||
| David,Traub | Significantly reducing carbon emissions is important for all the reasons already stated. My objection is the significant "absolute" government mandates (e.g. nearly 100% of indoor heating via electricity by 2040). The plan does not seem to allow for market and technology-driven alternatives including those that use existing infrastructure that achieve nearly the same goals at potentially lower financial cost to society. | ||
| Reta,Looker | What about POOR people who CAN NOT AFFORD to replace a furnace.... What will be done for them . Are they expected to FREEZE without money to afford new heating units | ||
| Celeste,Schneider | Moving straight to electricity is too expensive to the majority of the population in NY. It will not be reliable for many years and meeting NY's energy needs with renewable energy will not be feasible for many years. Forcing New Yorkers to switch to all-electric takes away their freedom to choose what works best for them. Moving to all-electric will increase the already high cost of doing business in New York, pushing businesses to locate out of state and eliminating jobs. We need an interim solution that accounts for all New Yorkers!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Sara,Hess | Fossil Free Tompkins | About 6 years ago, I was at a local meeting about climate issues and someone said, simply: Here's the big idea: We have to electrify everything - buildings, transportation, commerce, and industry - and the source for the electricity must come from renewable energy. That's the only way to stop the planet from warming and avoid catastrophic storms, droughts, and sea-level rise. It was one of those light-bulb-going-off inside my head events. To stop increasing CO2 emissions, we must stop burning fossil fuels, period. Not just gradually reduce gas, coal and oil burning, but STOP it." Today, this information is commonly heard, but at the time, it was a radical idea. The good news is that anyone who is interested knows what we must do. The bad news is that the earth is not giving us enough time to make the changes required. Enter: CLCPA and the audacious goals set in NY law. I am enormously grateful to the hundreds of people who put together this detailed, comprehensive, and rational plan for New York. Years of work by leaders in every field, debating, researching, considering unintended as well as intended consequences, went into it. Now is the time to consider public opinion, and to approve the plan without weakening it based on objections by powerful Oil and Gas Industry lobbyists. Their vested interests are obvious -- protect their business plan. But we know that when their profits and assets are protected by public funding and regulations, then we, the public, are the ones that suffer the consequences. So, please, do your job. Keep the welfare and the future well-being of NY State and its residents primary in your deliberations. Nothing is more important. | |
| Eleanor,berube | I am very much against the Scoping Plan in which the Climate Action Council is considering. It does not consider the economic impact that will affect many in Upstate New York and rural communities. In these areas it is necessary to have the option to use oil/propane/gas because we live in remote areas which are economically depressed. Many people in Upstate New York do not have the money to buy electric cars and we don't have the option to use public transportation. Electric cars are very unreliable in cold temperatures and often our temperatures are below zero. Electric cars need to be in a heated garage which many in the North country do not own. Loss of power happens often throughout the year, oil and propane/gas allows us to cook and heat our homes when this occurs. Taking this option away from us will make life even more of a struggle which will affect the poorest of our New York residents. During the summer months we are told to cut back on our usage of electricity because it strains the current system. How will the system survive when we all are on electricity? While I support cleaning up the environment in which we live, I feel that these measures are too aggressive. New York State should start with the major cities first and then work from there making adjustments as our technologies advance. Please don't forget the people who live in remote areas that are currently struggling with economic depression, lack of support and with few options when the safety net is taken away. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion, Eleanor Berube | ||
| Daniel,Gorke | Can you think of more ways to make NYS less competitive and more restrictive than anyplace in the US and the world? Okay, I'll give you California. The ongoing population exodus from NYS will produce quicker results than anything you're going to enact. It was nice living here. | ||
| Jake,Proper | This plan is a bad idea. Natural Gas is not that bad for the environment, and it will raise our energy costs significantly. It's bad for New York State, and the future of this State. "Green" Energy is a boondoggle, and only enriches wind and solar companies at the expense of New York citizens. Wind and solar are unreliable sources of energy, and actually cost more energy to create than they produce. Allow citizens to stick with reliable and affordable natural gas if they want to. | ||
| Khristian ,James | We need natural gas. It is cheap and affordable and it will assure people with natural gas jobs have future work so they can provide for their families. National Grids plan to introduce renewable gas is a great plan and I hope you guys agree. | ||
| Sharon L,Mistretta | Dear NYS Climate Council. You people in your cushy offices that we the taxpayer pay for need to step out into the Real World. As I drive around my neighborhood I see the wood-burning stoves and fireplaces and cords of wood for sale that not only the low-income people depend on, but many homes use to supplement heat in our cold weather region. I have lived in 3-total electric homes since 1969 as a teenager in my parents home, my married life and this last place that I have owned since 1984. We FROZE in all of them. Not to mention the $300+ electric bills received in 1971-1978 era that our working family went into Collection for >>>we were constantly borrowing money, having our electric shut off and robbing Peter to pay Paul just to survive. Many people around here used a Kero-Sun heater that you fill with kerosene just keep warm as electric heaters were just not enough. I was never so glad when I bought this house and a few years later Natural Gas came through our area. I hooked up right away and have been warm and able to pay my bills for years now. Even with the incentives that you plan to offer, electricity as a source of heat has still not become affordable nor has it become a good source at all to heat our homes here in the Northeast. More research and development is needed before you come up with an ultimatum such as the one you have proposed. Can the "Grid" handle such a mass move to electricity ? Have you even thought that out ? We people down here in small towns and rural areas should not be asked to take on such a burden just to make your agenda look good. STOP this plan before it starts and take a step back to look at the people you govern and redirect your ideas to Help them rather than Hinder them. | ||
| Michael,Karter | Will private houses need to convert from NG or propane to electric stoves, ranges, water heaters, and heating? If so, when? If so, who will pay for it? What the estimated cost for a household? | ||
| Theresa,Van Alstyne | What are you people smoking? You do not have the infrastructure in place to transition from heating with fossil fuels, let alone driving electric. The middle class can NOT keep taking on the expenses of your mighty ideals! Fossil fuels are some of the cleanest alternatives we have in the U.S. Do any of you actually LIVE here on less than $40,000 a year? Have you ever sat in the middle of a winter storm with your power (TRANSLATION: ELECTRICITY) out for 3 days where the only thing between you and freezing to death was a gas stove or fireplace? You are going to force all but the rich to even worse alternatives like wood-burning fireplaces. Of course, I'm sure that part of the larger plan is to keep the lower classes in their places. You've already taxed us into poverty so you can provide for the lazy! We won't be able to afford to travel, won't be able to afford electric vehicles or even electric heat. But then I guess if we all drop dead from lack of heat or cooling, that will fit in with your plans just fine. Just remember- sooner or later, you're going to run out of other people's money to spend. | ||
| Sandra ,Deyo | These plans are putative and will be impossible for the average working American. Lofty ideals | ||
| Philip,Gibson | Green Ridge Farm | What a wonderful idea to become dependent on one energy source, who could think up such a splendid thing. Just yesterday day morning April 10, 2022 on WGY news how many thousand subscribers of national grid customers were with out power in Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Ullster, Warren, and Washington Counties. And again this morning there were still thousands of customers with out power, nothing like being with out power. Yes I grew up where my bedroom was cold in the morning, pee in the chamber pot froze sometimes.the main part of the house was heated with a chunk stove in the living room and the cook stove in the kitchen. In 1945 after WW II my Farmer got a 12,000 watt belt driven generator for emergency power for the incubator to hatch chickens, milk the cows, cool the milk and provide power for the house. And yes it was USED sometimes for a week at a time. After I served in the Army and graduated from college came back to the farm I got a larger diesel powered generator, one time after we got the generator going the radio was on WDKA, the announcement their power was off as was ours (i live in Hartford, Washington County) the whole North East was without power for a week. Yes I’d sure want to depend on one energy source!! No oil, gas, LP has. Thank goodness there is still lots of the plentiful wood around that provides good heat and much cheaper than Biden’s high priced oil, Mother Nature is growing it all the time faster than I can cut it. Philip Gibson | |
| Michael,Tierney | Delta Construction Group SDVO LLC. | As a home owner in a rural part of the state I am questioning the future requirement of full electrification of all new homes that are to be built. In rural areas the cost of running power via poles or direct burial is extremely expensive. Many homes in northern New York use propane or natural gas to heat in the winter. The reason for this is power companies strive to restore electricity to the majority of customers as quickly as possible. Those in the "boondocks" are the last to have their electric service restored. This practice results in undue hardships for those that only have electricity as their power source. With the closure of coal fired power plants and a reduction in the number of nuclear plants and the current inability to store wind and solar electricity in quantities large enough to supply all customers it is premature to make the leap to an all electric home requirement. Why is Albert Gore a board member? He does not even reside in New York-I hope it is not a paid position. | |
| Julie,Brunell | Thank you for seeking comment. My husband and I reviewed the plan summary and applaud the work and plan details. The drafting committee was well diversified, the scope includes a well represented group of carbon and methane producers and it seems to have a well thought out timeline. We appreciated seeing the pie graph of where most carbon comes from and believe this visual should be widely publicised. I appreciated also highlighting the health benefits of the transitions. The economic impact summary that outlines the costs, low GSP, and costs of not doing is excellent. Again - getting this info out, along with the transition periods, to the public in easy to understand formats is critical. People/businesses are afraid they won't be able to afford the changes and that they will come too fast to adapt to. I believe our leaders in all sectors need to get clear, accurate info out, stand up to see this plan through, and help financially those private citizens and businesses in the transition. A key concern of ours in our rural area are the small and large farmers. They will need lots of support, time and financial assistance to convert as they run on such narrow margins. There are some great indications things are finally moving on decreased reliance on fossil fuels. Healthier, quieter and cleaner! Nice to see Nova Bus making electric buses in our area. A nice example of how rural NY and the city and environmental needs and industry can achieve a win-wins. Julie and Dennis Brunell | ||
| Kurt R.,Uetz | Self | Environmental activism in the 1970’s and 80’scaused a strong anti-nuclear sentiment resulting in the expansion of coal fired power plants across the US generating an enormous amount of pollution and carbon release into the atmosphere and waters. NY should not repeat that mistake. Please include nuclear power in the NY Climate Action Plan. Nuclear power produces clean carbon free electricity generation and hydrogen production and should be included in the NY Climate Action Plan for the following reasons: 1. The federal government is proposing $6B to upgrade and maintain the current levels of nuclear power which is producing over half the carbon free power in the US ? pursue the funds for NY plants! 2. The Dept of Energy and IAEA consider nuclear power a clean carbon free energy generator and promotes expansion of the plants. https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change 3. Nuclear power can be scaled from small modular systems to mega sized plants designed for application specific uses close to the needs and demands for electric power. 4. Nuclear power provides the power where needed, round-the-clock, for the future electrical demand from electric vehicles, planes, and many other forecast uses. 5. Nuclear power has a small fraction of the land or offshore footprint than other carbon free alternatives (solar, wind). https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable 6. Nuclear power requires a higher education and training level fostering higher paying jobs and continuing education needs. This is a boon to the local communities around nuclear power plants. 7. Addressing the disposition of spent fuel rods is being solved now and further scientific and engineering research will continue to provide adequate resolution by reducing the quantities through re-use of the material. It is imperative nuclear power is included in the NY Climate Action Plan, please make it so. Regards, Kurt R. Uetz Greece NY | |
| Ron,Dries | Ok so you want all electric problem is how is the electric going to stay on problem is no new electric generating plants electric company's can't keep the system up and running when in the summer every one is using air conditioning black outs and brown outs occur next problem the grid can't handle the load now so what is the plan for that now that people will be plugging electric cars in another load added power companies keep going to the psc asking for rate increases to up grade system but there only fixing what they have to not to mention storms knocking electric out ie ice storms severe snow how you going to keep people from freezing to death | ||
| Janet,Plarr | Once again NYS is overstepping it’s bound. In an effort to be cutting edge you want to save the world and bankrupt the people. The cost to consumers will be astronomical. How can a senior barely holding on to their home pay the costs to convert their domicile from Natural Gas to electricity? If NYS is committed to driving folks out of the state this may be that final straw. This has been poorly advertised and the average citizen knows nothing of this idiotic proposal. Where is your public outreach? | ||
| Elizabeth,Poreba | I am particularly concerned about NYSEG's recent, pie-in-the-sky promises to go totally green by 2050. The promises of "green hydrogen" and "biogas" are attempts to deflect NYS from maintaining a steady course toward electrification of housing and transportation. We have seen in California how heavy-handed fossil fuel companies can become in attempting to forestall the life-saving transformation of our energy system to renewably-sourced electricity. Stay the course! | ||
| Richard,Taylor | Mandating all electric power for private residences is a big mistake. I don’t support this legislation. | ||
| Marc,Devokaitis | Chair, Town of Ulysses Conservation a nd Sustainability Action Committee | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. I'd like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. The faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. Thanks, Marc | |
| Laurie,Bens | It is obvious that the State will do what it wants by eliminating our options for transportation, for powering and heating our homes, and for cooking our food. You talk about the cost to citizens, but I am not convinced you really understand it. Maybe I don't want to go into debt for thousands of dollars to replace my heating system for a geothermal heat pump because it is 4x the cost of a new natural gas furnace and that is just one item. Why can't there be a mix of fossil fuel and renewables? You assume the technology to make renewables reliable and sufficient for future needs will improve. Why not assume that the technology to decrease emissions will also. Companies whose products use fossil fuels are already doing so. What damage is being done to the environment in the mining of rare earth minerals for batteries. What about the acres upon acres of land used for windmills and solar panels, transmission lines and substations. What about the effects on the wildlife? On the humans that live near them? At the end of life usefulness for these solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, what becomes of them? Off to the landfill? "Green" isn't as clean as politicians and activists pretend it is. Just because you say it will be better, doesn't make it so. We have been sold that bill of goods over, and over, and over, ad nauseum. | ||
| Patricia,Henighan | TOM CAC | As a member of the Town of Montgomery Conservation Advisory Council,I have focused on ways to involve the community in supporting actions that will help us become more climate smart and work towards a cleaner and greener community and future. We engage in regular tree plantings river clean ups and other ways to protect our watersheds and natural environment. We have held energy workshops to encourage the transition to heat pumps. However, our community is not wealthy and even middle class families do not get enough financial support to make the change to clean energy. As an agricultural area, we are losing open space to the incursion of large companies filling the land with warehouses miles long that make no effort to build green buildings or install solar on their extensive roofing. This should not be an option on new construction of this kind. Gas reigns supreme in this area and brings with it fracking an additional polluting factor. The state must end utility marketing of gas and prioritize non-pipe alternatives for all heating expansion. Forests should be recognized as being an important way of sequestering carbon. Instead forests are quickly removed during the period DEC allows if endangered bats are located. No thought is given to wetlands as well. Small wetlands have no protection even though they play an important role in flood control among other roles. | |
| Deana ,Bevins | I believe it to be in our best interest to keep gas ranges/stoves as we do lose power from time to time and cooking/eating is essential! Also, woodstoves/burning wood has been a Mail heat source for many families in the north country. It's affordable! Leave well enough alone!!! | ||
| Alan,Messer | Achieving climate justice is inter-generational in scope. Admittedly we have committed the future to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This brings (when comparing to the Eemian inter-glacial, likely the most useful metric) a minimum of 16 feet to a maximum 32 feet of sea level rise. And more as we add each increment above this best case scenario. Negative fossil fuel externalities must be addressed. The attenuating jet stream delivered by amplified arctic warming is wreaking weather havoc now and will only become more damaging. Cement boondoggles won't beat the seas; a wall/barrier will be obsolete as soon as it's completed. CO2 atmospheric reduction by industrial means can not make a meaningful dent. The heat is in the system. Todays levels won't be expressed for 30 yrs. ("Thirty yr lag time" - Dr. Jim White NASA Jet/Propulsion lab, Boulder Co). Electrification of new buildings is essential. "Blue Hydrogen" is a green washing scheme. Bitcoin is a gag that can't redirect energy from residential consumers and proper industry. We need local efficiency and local electrical generation where possible, and public utilities when possible. This is a public trust. SLR could ramp up at surprising rates within our kids' lifetimes. Antarctic observations aren't figured in the projections, nor Greenland. Multi meter SLR is possible late this century. Fisheries, forestry, agriculture, hydrology, - everything will be stressed. National measures have been. paralyzed by sheer sociopathic madness and cowardice. Cities and States are key to showing the way to serious solutions to the climate crisis. Thank you. - Alan Messer NYC | ||
| Eric,Laine | It is vital that NY rapidly transitions our buildings from fossil fuels to electricity. I live in Binghamton and have had an air source heat pump for 2 years. It performs extremely well through our cold upstate winters. My solar PV system provides for my home electricity usage, heating and local driving with my EVs. I am avoiding spending about $2000/year on propane for heating, have provided good local green jobs for my system installations, and have a neutral carbon footprint. I want to ensure a good future for my children and grandchildren. I support the Scoping Plan's proposed 2024/2027 timeframe for prohibiting fossil fuels in new building construction. I support the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations to: Align state laws governing utility service with the Climate Act, eliminating the requirement of utilities to supply gas service to anyone who requests it and supporting the transition to equitable, energy-efficient electrification. Immediately end State and utility marketing of fossil gas, and ramp up marketing and incentives for air-source and ground-source heat pumps. Deny new gas infrastructure permits, which would only increase GHG emissions and create more stranded assets. Additionally, I urge the Climate Action Council to include language directing utilities to end expansion of the gas distribution system into new geographic areas. I support the Scoping Plan's focus on efficient electrification as the appropriate pathway to eliminating emissions from buildings, not false solutions like renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen. RNG contributes to air pollution and cannot be produced in sufficient quantities in New York to replace fossil fuels. The production of hydrogen is polluting, and its distribution would require costly new pipeline infrastructure to deliver to buildings. Both RNG and hydrogen are being promoted by the fossil fuel industry in an effort to prolong use of fossil fuels and related infrastructure. | ||
| Hamed ,Haidari | Bard College | Introduce a feebate for zero-emission vehicles. Since transportation emissions are so high, it is important to promote the use of electric vehicles. A feebate program for zero-emission vehicles would be a great way to incentivize the purchase of ZEVs and make them more affordable for LMI customers. Transportation is a constant in this world, thus it is necessary to create a feasible plan that tackles transportation head-on. | |
| diane,collins | North Country Earth Action.org | Commentary of the Climate Council Scoping Plan 4-14-2022 Despite the wealth (over three hundred pages) of the proposed Scoping Plan recommendations to implement and reach toward the bold targets of the 2019 Climate Bill passed by our legislature, I remain deeply troubled about lost time. There has been no significant climate action funding for the past two years!. My name is Diane Collins from Glens Falls. I helped to organize a local non-profit called North Country Earth Action alerting walkers and drivers to the climate crisis with banners, lawn signs, night lights, and a climate clock ticking away. My email signature says "Climate Action - It's Time! Every Friday at noon an activist friend and I stand on the bridge between Glens Falls and So. Glens Falls holding the earth flag and a big banner that says Protect Our Earth, Stand Up, Speak Out, Take Action! The three recent IPCC United Nations state-of-the-world science-based climate reports repeat that we are in grave danger without rapid reduction in fossil fuel emissions and stopping new fossil fuel infrastructure. This incredible urgency is not reflected in the scoping document. While I heartily endorse your recommendations, finalizing the plan after evaluating and incorporating public feedback will take more time. Legislative action to enact your recommendations will take yet again more time. While my friends have advised me that this is not the forum to promote legislative action now, I urge our legislature during this current session to be bold again and begin enacting recommendations in harmony with the proposed scoping plan. Climate action can't wait! Submitted by Diane Collins Glens Falls NY [email protected] Northcountryearthaction.org | |
| Abdullah,Mohib | Bard College | Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. | |
| Jalil,Sadat | Bard college | Expand organics collection programs to multi-family and public housing. Multi-family and public housing make up a relatively large portion of communities in New York, making it so that they can possibly collectively generate large amounts of organic waste that may be sent to landfills instead of recycled. Thus, expanding outreach and education to this population has potential in inducing effective shifts in organic waste divestment from landfills to organic waste collections. This is also significant in inviting communities who may be disproportionately affected by environmental injustice issues to be included in solutions that may have effects on their lives more strongly than others. | |
| Bob,Benway | I strongly disagree with the proposed Scoping Plan. This will create unnecessary hardships on many people. Plus, NYS does not have the electrical capacity to handle the new proposed requirements. Keep in mind that about half of NYS electricity is generated by gas, oil, or coal. That output would have to increase. | ||
| Sandra,Hemstreet | I live in Montgomery County and am a member of the Planning Board. My family is also in the dairy industry. We believe Renewables are important to our future. Yet, rather than working with communities directly, the State has chosen to use the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (the Act) to override Home Rule for our localities. In an effort to provide "aid to disadvantaged communities" the State has removed the voice of the community and is, instead, funding renewables developers who we regularly find taking advantage of community members. The State is siting solar on valuable farm land needed to feed our State/Country. Ad & Markets recommendations to avoid valuable Ag Land is often being ignored. Your rural citizens know what is at stake for their homes and farms. This is the time NYS government to protect the interests of its constituents. Rather than funding the interests of Renewables Companies, NYS, fund your localities. Give them the tools they need to incorporate renewables in a thoughtful way that benefits both our need for clean energy and our desire to feed our State and maintain the integrity of our rural communities. | ||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | |||
| Brian,Arnold | Arnold Audio Artists | The current State proposal to eliminate natural gas infrastructure to new and eventually existing buildings is very short-sighted and punitive in scope. Natural Gas is the most efficient of all fuels, and can operate modern appliances which reduce harmful emissions by 95% or higher. Better yet, fuel cells that turn gas into electricity while only producing water are becoming available even to homeowners and small businesses. Also, devices that strip hydrogen from gas molecules will also become cheaper and more plentiful for storage and distribution using the current infrastructure. Since manufacturing of solar cells and windmills produce much higher amounts of pollution than they save in the long-run, relying on these technologies to move us into a 'greener' economy is a false argument. Only a wide mixture of technologies can help us get to the goal of lowering emissions, and gas needs to be in the mix. To completely ignore these realities is criminal, and the current bill needs to be scrapped. Brian Arnold Clay, NY | |
| m,m | This may be a well intended plan, but it is going to raise energy and consumer cost for all of us New Yorkers. It is not feasible. It is a bad plan and time table. | ||
| Kimberly,Burkard | I completely support all initiatives to combat climate change including decarbonizing our state. | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Please Commit at least $1 billion annually to support energy efficiency and electrification for Disadvantaged Communities and low- and moderate-income households. NYSERDA has estimated that $1 billion annually is the minimum investment required to ensure an equitable and affordable clean energy transition. The $250 million in current State and utility spending is woefully inadequate to meet the need. Create a revolving loan fund for building decarbonization and the reuse of buildings and building materials, modeled on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Please Enact an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program for packaging that: Requires companies to cut production of plastic packaging by 50% by 2030; prohibits toxins in packaging and requires use of safer alternatives; provides strong oversight and accountability by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation; requires that companies pay fees based on the degree of difficulty of packaging recycling and the extent of recycled content. Fees can help compensate communities for recycling costs and support reuse and recycling programs. | ||
| CORINNE,HANSCH | Lovin' Mama Farm | I am an organic farmer in Amsterdam, NY. Farmers can be a major part of the solution to climate change. #1. We MUST invest in regenerative farms right now as the #1 way to combat climate change. The more we support and invest in regenerative farms using practices such as no-till, rotational grazing, cover crops, compost, and mulch, the more carbon sequestration we will see. #2 We MUST prioritize land and capital access to BIPOC farmers. BIPOC farmers were never given land in the way white settlers were and it is time to right this wrong! In general, BIPOC farmers are leaders in the climate movement and using deep regenerative practices on their land. #3 Give financial incentives such as a "Payment for Ecosystem Services" for regenerative farmers and ranchers who are doing the essential work of sequestering carbon in their soils. The cost of doing business for regenerative farmers is much much higher than conventional. We must give financial support and incentives to farms using regenerative practices since these are the farms fighting climate change with their production methods! #4 Cease public funding to major polluting CAFOs. This must stop NOW! Organic and regenerative farmers are disgusted by how much funding the worst polluting farms get to "clean up" their problems. Currently it is very hard for organic and regenerative farms to get any USDA money since we don't meet the resource concerns required for NRCS funding. Meanwhile, the dirty and polluting farms (CAFOs, dairies, and tillage based farms) that are directly responsible for approx. 20% of climate change are getting significantly higher USDA subsidies. Responsible farmers who are working to combat climate change by building soil health should be getting the support, NOT the CAFOs, conventional dairies, and heavy tillage based farms. Imagine a world where the payments are incentivized to increase climate resilient farming! We could turn around climate change today. | |
| John,Daub | This bill.....this program is nothing more than a far reaching progressive agenda that is another tax on NY State citizens.....like me. Solar power is not there yet. Wind Power is negligible. Indian Point has been "coumo'd out of existence. The taxes and unreasonable expectations vis a vis the limitations on private citizens and private businesses as it applies to fossil fuels(Petro/LNG) is unreasonable. Rural NYS will be particularly hard hit. Stop doing state business with Chinese interests which are unfettered in the manner they pollute the planet to the detriment of us all. Do not shackle us with this agenda which is nothing more than more expense to reside here.....or I am going to move. JJ Daub | ||
| CeCelia,Tanner | We have lived in upstate New York most of our life's Queensbury area. We also own a camp in the Adirondacks. Recently we replaced a oil burning furnace with natural gas which is more effective and much cleaner. We also have a wood stove at our camp. Being in the areas of both we are subject to many power outages during nasty weather. To switch to electrical heating and cooking sources is not ideal for either location for many reasons. It would not be cost effective, the cost to change everything would be very expensive and we just invested in our new furnace and stove and all the costs again are not in our budget. The areas have electrical outages currently so how would they handle the extra power being used? There are also people in the upstate area that do not have or use electricity and only use wood stoves and other sources of energy for heat and lighting. Please protect upstate New York from being forced to convert. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Patrick ,Shivers | New York State has always lead the nation in so many ways!! Wr have to make climate change work for our future generations. Let’s lead the way again with good UNION jobs, and clean energy for all. | ||
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | • I support the draft plan’s vision of gas infrastructure being strategically decommissioned and consolidated, and the ultimate closure of gas utilities. I especially support the elimination of statutory provisions that would prevent the renewable energy transition from happening. AS AN ARCHITECT I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO new building codes FOR ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDINGS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. I WORK TOWARDS THAT IN MY CURRENT PRACTICE. • The cost of decommissioning the gas system must be spread equitably across rate classes to ensure low to moderate-income households and renters are not left behind in the transition. • ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLES MUST BE WHAT REPLACES fossil gas systems. We have known for decades that low-income communities and communities of color (despite income level) are more likely to live close to power plants, the refineries that generate oil and gas, and the petrochemical facilities that produce oil-based chemicals used throughout our economy. THERE MUST BE LONG TERM FUNDING IN PLACE FOR MAKING SURE THIS TRANSITION IS ONGOING. | |
| Melissa,Architect | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I AM AN ARCHITECT IN ROCHESTER, NY, AND MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS, WITHIN THIS PREFAB COMMENTARY. I AM SEEING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN MY FOOD GARDENS IN ROCHESTER. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW. WE NEED A TRANSITION THAT IS CONSIDERATE OF ALL LIFE AND FAIR TO DISADVANTAGED HUMAN COMMUNITIES. There will be costs to inaction in health, the built environment, and the economy. We can work to grow jobs, grow more resilient, and clean our environment, and it will cost us less than the clean up of inaction by ABOUT $100 BILLION. WE CAN'T CONTINUE PASSING THE COST TO THE FUTURE WHILE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES GROW RICHER OF THEIR DESTRUCTION AND UNWILLINGNESS TO CHANGE. Climate change will affect the health of people vulnerable to heat spikes. Cleaning up our environment will positively effect those in low-income communities and communities of color who are suffering from harmful pollution due to the reliance of our economy on fossil fuels. The faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. ALL OF THE WORK IN ALL PARTS OF THIS PLAN WILL NEED AN ONGOING SOURCE OF FUNDING, SO PLEASE INCLUDE THIS IN THE PLAN | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am an Architect in Rochester NY. I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing.THIS WILL REQUIRE EDUCATION AND PERHAPS UPCHARGES, BUT WE NEED TO START NOW. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products IN MINIMAL AND RECYCLABLE PACKAGING. ADDITIONAL WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ENGAGEMENT/ EDUCATION SHALL includE a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I AM AN ARCHITECT IN ROCHESTER NY, AND MY ADDED WORDS IN THIS PREFAB COMMENT ARE IN CAPS. WE MUST Ensure that Regional Economic Development Councils (REDCs) are diversified to adequately represent members of DACs. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT and Smart Growth strategies should address environmental justice issues that might not have anything to do with additional growth. Members of the affected communites and DACs shall be engaged in redevelopment. To reduce co-pollutants in DACs, mitigation strategies should equally balance priorities to address the need for pollution prevention, green infrastructure, open spaces, and other environmental improvements. URBAN FARMING AND GARDENING PROJECTS CAN HELP MITIGATE FOOD INSECURITY AND PROVIDE PRODUCTIVE TIME USE FOR DAC MEMBERS. The scoping plan must recognize and acknowledge the differences in needs between rural, suburban, and urban areas. WE ALL NEED LOCAL FOOD, WHICH WILL REDUCE FOOD MILES DRIVEN AND INCREASE FARMER/BUYER ENGAGEMENT AND APPRECIATION IN THE URBAN SUBURBAN AREAS. DAC URBAN AREAS LOOK DIFFERENT THAN RURAL DACs BUT ARE EQUALLY DESERVING. A CONTINUING SOURCE OF FUNDING MUST BE INCLUDED FOR THESE STRATEGIES. | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I have been buying fruits, vegetables and animal products from local organic farmers near Rochester for over 30 years. These are the farms that are helping the climate and the community. These are the small farmers that should get incentives. New York must incentivize agroecology, agroforestry, and regenerative organic agriculture; preserve forests and farmland;, and decentivize Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), biofuels, carbon offsets, and all carbon markets. Our state must invest in programs to enable underserved communities to access land and farming resources. In addition to the standard definition of DAC in the document, these groups needing help to access farming resources include BIPOC, women, LGBTQIA+, low-income, veteran, and beginning farmers, and undocumented farmworkers employed on farms in NYS We must protect and restore our soil resources—and our rural economies and communities—by providing a base income to land managers who regenerate soil. Genesse Land Trust has preserved a number of farms in the 9 county Genesee/ Finger Lakes Region, and I have supported them for 2 decades. We have amazing soil, but have lost much of it to development. Nature can help us, but only if it is still nature, not pavement and buildings. We must create more farms, gardens, forests, urban greenery, and state parks for the good of public health, by preserving what we have and valuing undeveloped land. By supporting a greater diversity of farms and farmers, and climate focused land managers, we’ll have more carbon in our soil and healthier, fresher food on our tables. These strategies will need a source of continued funding. | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | (MY COMMENTS TO THIS PREFAB SECTION ARE IN CAPS) I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040. I WAS PART OF GETTING ROCHESTER RESIDENTS ONTO GREEN ELECTRICITY THROUGH CCA. NYISO AGREES THAT CCA IS PART OF OUR GREEN GRID FUTURE, maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. WE MUST CONTINUE building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. PUBLIC EDUCATION MUST ENGAGE RESIDENTS WHO MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY SOLAR/ WIND SITING. We must HAVE electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for DAC participation in community renewable energy, siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. THESE SHOULD BE ON BROWNFIELDS, OVERSIZE PARKING LOTS, AND HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Agrovolatics should be encouraged. Pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. THIS IS ALREADY BEING USED, AND KNOWN TO WORK. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. WASTE PRODUCED GAS SHOULD BE USED ON SITE, POSITIVE EFFECTS ARE LOST IF IT IS TRANSPORTED OFF SITE. PART OF THE REASON RENEWABLE GAS TRANSPORT IS BAD, IF they serve as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. AS WITH ALL OF THIS, LONG TERM FUNDING IS NEEDED. | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | My name is Melissa and I am an architect in Rochester. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan as a member of the public and long time advocate of the environment. The emission reduction strategies of cap-and-invest or clean fuel are not workable strategies. Please reject them, as they will not create equitable investment nor stop the fossil fuel infrastructure. There MUST be long term funding mechanisms incorporated into the plan. The polluter penalty is one source of funding, but the reduction of pollution must also be part of the solution. The impacts of pollution and the increased prices will be felt more severely by the low income population, and they must therefore reap greater benefits and assistance with funding. | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Georgia Solar at 3.73% New York Solar at 1.77% NYS Solar Capacity Factor at 13%, Georgia over 20% I doubt that any one reads this or cares what is written. NYS will plod ahead no matter what. CLCPA will fail, NYS only at 27.4% renewable, 70% by 2030 won't happen. | |
| John,Jacob | Seeing how our leaders in green initiatives want to shutdown nuclear. What do you think will generate power for the grid? The answer is oil and gas... Just in case your unaware that's not a good thing. Stop trying to restrict what people can do to decrease carbon footprint by half a percent, when you can greatly reduce it by going nuclear. Seriously - you want to ban wood stoves and ATVs that run on gas, but you'll ignore the elephant in the room? I don't like Ronald Regan - he had a lot of terrible policies, but you guys sure solidify his quote. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help." | ||
| William,Makofske | self | I first want to thank you for an exhaustive look at what would be needed for the transition. I find your report valuable and fairly complete. May I suggest making a much shortened version that you can distribute to the public and to the media. Every suggestion or strategy should be accompanied by a short economic, public health and environmental analysis offering the rationale for the changes suggested, and a plan and timeline for achieving it. As someone who has made the transition to an almost net-zero energy house some 25 years ago, I can tell you it is much easier to go there directly than to modify existing houses. On the other hand, it is not hard to achieve lower energy consumption and a lifestyle based on renewable energy once you decide to do it, even in existing houses.. One area that I found inadequate was your discussion of the role of passive solar in housing. Passive solar coupled with high efficiency, PV on the roof, and air or ground source heat pumps would easily and cheaply reduce heating costs and help pay for the heat pump conversion. You need to clarify that for the public. A second area is hot water. Heat pump hot water heaters could reduce hot water energy consumption by a factor of 4. Since hot water accounts for 25% of household energy consumption, this is no small deal. You need to offer and advertise rebates for installing these systems. Even small rebates of $100 to $500 would be desirable. Right now, these efficient water heaters are invisible to the public. I recently did a a search of the websites of HVAC and plumbing companies in Orange County, NY. I could not find these hot water heat pumps even mentioned. The only place I found them was at Home Depot and Lowes. And lastly, you need to sell the plan. There is much opposition from those who would stand to lose something or even anything in the transition. They can only be dealt with if you show that the transition will be worth the effort. | |
| Larissa,Borglum | MVP | Hello, I spoke at the public hearing on Thursday, but I'd like to go into a bit more detail about some of my points. While I am a fan of solar power in many ways, it is clear that New York State needs to be more mindful of its land use in this area. Some solar companies prey upon naive rural farmers for their land; some place solar panels with no regard for existing ecosystems. I propose some restrictions on companies in order to prevent this, because it is certainly not environmental justice. An emphasis on creative placement of solar panels, such as over parking lots, would help address this problem. We also need to be extremely careful with trash incineration, if it is done at all. The practice carries significant risks and I am concerned that it would be a step backward for New York State. Finally, based on what I have learned in my environmental policy degree program, nuclear power is reliable, highly efficient, and quite low-risk. I wholeheartedly believe it would be a good idea to open at least one more nuclear power plant in the state. Investing in nuclear fusion research would help lead us to an even safer, cleaner solution down the road. | |
| Ellen,Driscoll | Bard College | Ellen Driscoll Comments on: Buidlings; I support a ban on all fossil fuel equipment in new buildings to move to all electric buildings by 2024-27. Financial assistance must be provided to help economically challenged citizens to go to all electric households. This includes 1 billion per year for low and moderate income households. All advertising and marketing of fossil fuels must cease to make this transition to electric technologies such as ground and air source heat pumps. To achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible, no later than 2050, fossil fuels consumption must end as soon as possible. The Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act (S. 8198) must provide affordable access. Transportation: I support financial incentives for transition to zero emission vehicles. Feebates for purchases and leases can quicken the move away from gasoline fueled vehicles. Electric car chargers must be installed in many more locations in the next two years. All vehicles for state and municipal business across the state must be electric immediately. Expanded public transportation, all electric must be expanded across NY State and the tri-state area to incentivize the transition away from single use vehicles. Electricity: I support a 100% transition away from fossil fuels, and investment in renewable energy for the state. Disadvantaged communities must be financially engaged and supported during this transition as fossil fuel plants are decommissioned and the sites repurposed. Clear, rapid timelines must be established and held to. Financial incentives for all citizens to take advantage of solar and wind, with incentives for storage and renewable energy use across the state must be created. Fossil fuels are no longer cost effective, but the cost of climate change itself---if the urgency of the present moment is ignored...will dwarf the current cost of change. Waste: I support the following: a surcharge on landfill waste and a push to incentivize greater and more s | |
| Amy,Winkelmann | Why are we turning Niagara county which is a back bone farming community into solar panels and Amazon warehouse???. Are you going to let China grow our food and produce all our goods???? | ||
| Matt,Swire | Colgate University Student | While it is encouraging to see the strides that NY is taking to reduce the waste produced across the state, there are some glaring shortcomings within this plan that will allow for waste of various forms to be a continuous problem in the foreseeable future. The biggest one I would like to highlight is the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling law that went into effect this year which mandates large generators of food scraps to donate food if they are within 25 miles of a viable organics recycler. I am currently a student at Colgate University who is also a member of the Office of Sustainability which is trying to tackle food waste on campus to little avail. After reviewing some internal research in our office, it is estimated that Colgate wastes approximately 30% of its food which results in 130 tons of waste annually. Since Colgate is not within 25 miles of an organics recycler, there is little incentive to change. I suspect that this pattern is similar amongst other rural universities, colleges, and boarding schools throughout NY state which necessitates change. While I see that the DEC has grant programs available, I doubt that this will be sufficient to initiate meaningful change throughout the state without a change to regulation. I suggest that further regulation be devoted to rural campuses which are frequently mass producers of waste which could be used to better the communities they are within. Another route to improve this situation is increasing funding to the Municipal Waste Reduction and Recycling Program (MWRR) of the EPA in order to improve infrastructure for food waste facilities. While funding infrastructure change could be beneficial, I believe that mandating change will be a more effective means to address the food waste problem in large food waste generators such as Colgate University. | |
| Dennis,Dross | na | Solar and wind power are a good supplement to create energy but can never replace natural gas, oil, and coal. Look at what happened in Germany 2 winters ago. California is not able to support their energy needs with wind and solar. We need a reliable energy source for manufacturing. Doing away with the God given resources of the earth is CRAZY !!! 40 years ago these climate change people said there will be no beaches, Manhattan will be under water, Polar ice caps will be gone. None of this has happened ! The earth goes through cycles just like the sun. Polar ice is growing again and will continue to grow. This global warming scam is used to line the pockets of politician's and the wealthy. Your clean energy goals are pure fantasy and will hurt the people of NYS. | |
| John,Merry | Adirondack Air Balance Co., Inc. | The initiative to go green has gone too far. The cost associated with these policies are enormous. Most people up here live paycheck to paycheck. They have no money for expensive heating systems or electric cars. NYS taxes are some of the highest in the nation. You have already driven out thousands of people with careless spending and mandated programs. There is NO FREE LUNCH. You need to wake up to the fact that increased government programs like this only stand to harm most people. If you REALLY want to save the planet you could start with improving infrastructure. Get rid of traffic lights and replacing them with roundabouts. Consolidate schools and insulate buildings, optimize air handling systems allowing free cooling and improving air quality (I am NOT suggesting switching to heat pumps). NYS should focus on clean energy whether that be from burning woodchips in upstate public schools or improving our hydro capabilities. After watching Texas homes freeze as the grid went down for weeks it seems totally illogical to depend MORE on the grid. If one is to switch to "electric" heat in the north country one must also have a backup generator to sustain their dwelling. A much better idea would be to offer incentives to improve woodstove efficiency. A secondary burn stove is way more efficient than the typical stove in most north country homes so why not lower the bar to include these stove in a state or federal credit. Please do not continue to drive out the taxpayers . | |
| Frank,Marshall | Real Estate Investor | I disagree with the implementation of this plan. I own property in upstate NY and its my belief that this will create supply and demand price spikes. Lessening the energy options customers have creates supply and demand problems. Energy costs will most likely go through the roof and create a monopoly. The link below shows the GDP of the 50 states over the last 50 years. NY State is going in one direction. Its my belief policies like these will increase the decline of our states GDP. https://vimeo.com/348189947 | |
| Tim,Reynolds | I don’t believe in your top down push to make a change in climate. This should be choice made by residents of NYS and not your heavy handed approach. Again politics are in play and we the people have to deal with the perceived crisis. Take a more guiding approach and teach people the benefits. When you’re done no one will live here because of the $$$$$$ taxes directly and indirectly | ||
| Mark,Souva | What a bunch of crap! We need to find a clean source of energy before even thinking of zero emissions! When you have a way to create the energy clean, then start down the road to make these types of changes. We up here in the north country cannot even imagine going this route. The costs alone we would not even begin to afford. These ideas may work in NYC, but not here. We are struggling enough here without having to face this. The only thing I can see coming out of this is everyone moving out of New York along with the business. | ||
| Elizabeth,Keokosky | I am very glad to see the emphasis on soil health and regenerative agricultural methods in this draft plan, but I would like to see more clarity built into these BMPs that the purpose of these methods is to feed and nurture the microbes and complex ecosystem of the soil which in turn will feed the plants which in turn creates a complimentary community in the soil. The end result is increased biodiversity, not only in the soil, increasing biomass and carbon sequestration, but also carrying over to other levels of life, in the soil and above it - to earthworms, insects, birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and a whole chain of prey and predators. Then that idea, that concept of biodiversity and regeneration, spills over to increase the health of other land and water based activities, as well as human health. In a parallel way of thinking, forestation and reforestation projects should emphasis the importance of a wide variety of local species to re-establish and restore as much as possible the ecosystem and complexity of wildlife that existed there before. Corridors that connect movement between these areas should be encouraged. As books like "Regeneration" by Paul Hawken and "Finding the Mother Tree" by Suzanne Simard make clear, protecting intact forests is one of the most potent carbon sequestration acts that can be done. Re-wilding them protects biodiversity, which encourages earth systems. Not all forests are equal. An old forest is more dynamic than a new forest, which may take 40 years or more to establish itself. And the biodiversity found in an old forest takes even longer. All this makes using biomass for combustion questionable. The problem is the inevitable progress toward bigness and growth of a business instead of keeping it small and local. Biomass as an enterprise only makes environmental sense within in a radius of 50 miles. Much, much better is to incentivize methods that increase heat efficiency and decrease energy waste. | ||
| John,Strand | Respectfully, we are strongly opposed to the plan to 1) Ban any new Natural Gas service to existing homes and buildings as well as newly constructed buildings and homes effective January 1, 2024 2) ban the sale of natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating , etc. by 2030. 3) Banning the sale of gasoline powered automobiles by 2035. This is simply not in the best interest of NYS Citizens, or anyone anywhere else. It will simply crate more problems for NYS communities and citizens. These proposals do not have any merit, and have consequences that will result in more problems for NYS residents. | ||
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I AM AN ARCHITECT IN ROCHESTER, AND AM INTERESTED IN CITY PLANNING FOR SMART GROWTH. I WANT TO REDUCE MY DEPENDENCE ON GASOLINE, AND THIS INCLUDES ALL THE VEHICLES OPERATING ON MY BEHALF IN THE STATE FLEET AND TRUCKING INDUSTRY. I UNDERSTAND THAT TRANSPORTATION IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST GHG EMITTERS AND WE NEED POLICY TO PUSH IT QUICKLY TO CLEAN ELECTRIC POWER. WE NEED strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, EV adoption incentives, and to electrify the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. We must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support: -a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. -easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. -accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out . -incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars park for extended periods to install charging stations. -state development of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. -adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. ROCHESTER IS STILL IN NEED OF MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT, WHICH WILL HELP FAMILIES WHO DO NOT HAVE CARS. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies, including mobility-oriented development. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I AM AN ARCHITECT IN ROCHESTER, AND AM INTERESTED IN CITY PLANNING FOR SMART GROWTH. I WANT TO REDUCE MY DEPENDENCE ON GASOLINE, AND THIS INCLUDES ALL THE VEHICLES OPERATING ON MY BEHALF IN THE STATE FLEET AND TRUCKING INDUSTRY. I UNDERSTAND THAT TRANSPORTATION IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST GHG EMITTERS AND WE NEED POLICY TO PUSH IT QUICKLY TO CLEAN ELECTRIC POWER. WE NEED strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, EV adoption incentives, and to electrify the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. We must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support: -a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. -easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. -accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out . -incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars park for extended periods to install charging stations. -state development of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. -adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. ROCHESTER IS STILL IN NEED OF MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT, WHICH WILL HELP FAMILIES WHO DO NOT HAVE CARS. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies, including mobility-oriented development. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make public comments concerning the Draft Scoping Plan | |
| Robert,LaDuca | As a highly educated and responsible tax paying and lifelong citizen of New York, I am a staunch Conservative and do not believe that there is any justifiable need to address a reduction in so called greenhouse emissions. I do not believe in this notion of "man-made climate change". We have the cleanest fossil fuel energy program on the planet. This Scoping Plan will only serve to drive up the cost of needed energy, lead to more centralized government control, and line the pockets of a few elites. | ||
| Robert,Cohen | I live in the Catskills which is rural area. Our entire county and the counties around it have extremely unreliable electric service, which probably is impossible to improve very much. There are hundreds of miles of lines which are surrounded by huge trees. I do have a mini split system which I can use to complement my oil/hot water system to use less oil. I also have a LP generator to protect us in a power emergency. The ice storm this year cause a loss of power for about 70 hours. My home would have frozen solid without this. The cost of installing a full geo heat pump system here would be prohibitive and impossible to afford for my wife and I as we are retired. Even a zero % loan would be unaffordable. I would also need to install an even larger generator for backup or a $50000 battery system(smaller systems are useless after about 12 hours) We do need to reduce carbon emissions, but lets not be stupid about it and promote changes so rapid that we will put us in dangerous situations. I should also add that when I was living in NJ when Sandy hit, I went over 10 days without power and it was cold and snowy. The gas services was uninterrupted the entire time so I was able to run my gas boiler off a car battery and inverter to keep warm. Centralized electric transmission in inherently unreliable Please be smart and not hysterical about this. The Ukraine war should be a wake up call to get off whatever fossil fuels we can, andnot to leave ourselves vulnerable to catastrophic events that will happen Wind energy and solar are great..but decentralize it on private homes communities and commercial/industrial buildings so as not to create another foreign owned power monopoly . And don't cut us off from all oil and gas | ||
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I am already feeling the effects of climate change in my work as a farmer/gardener producing food. I am understanding the effects of climate change in my work as an architect. I am concerned about the effects of climate change as a human in a world of human and non-human relations. I realize that Rochester, my home, is feeling less of the effects than other places, but as a global community, it will affect us. I am thankful that the Climate Action Council has mapped out many of the transitions we need to make. Buildings are a huge component of our emissions, and we can change that. New York is a leader, and can influence national trends. We have missed decades of opportunity to act and have to make up for lost time. I have upgraded my 1920's home to be fully electric; it is reliable and was affordable due to state tax incentives. But I know this is not feasible for all, due to cost and effort. New York State needs to implement changes to the grid's power supply, building codes and equipment standards (not just mandate). Now. We need to help all sectors of the population electrify homes and workplaces. Now. This will provide many types of jobs, and be an example to the lagging states. The fossil fuel companies, the utility companies are spreading falsehoods knowingly and unknowingly, to their own workers because they are unable to imagine better. Buildings can be cleaner, healthier, and be part of a healthier community. We have transitioned quickly when needed, and that is NOW. The storms, the damages, the deaths are all happening now and will come to our state. We can play a pivotal role NOW. | |
| Stephanie,Doba | A robust final Scoping Plan is very important to me as a New York resident. There is no more time left to kick climate action down the road. New York needs to keep its strong leadership role in climate policy -- for the nation and, hopefully, the world. I urge the Climate Action Council to resist pressure from the oil and gas industry, business associations, unions, and others. These people cannot see the forest - the cataclysmic impacts of a warming world - for the trees - a perceived threat to their business models or personal interests. Polling shows that the public wants MORE government action, not less, to curb greenhouse gas emissions. We need a CAC scoping plan that does this, phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible from the energy generation, transportation and building sectors, and phasing in robust investments in renewable energy across all sectors. At the same time, we need policies that promote environmental justice, remediating pollution and climate impacts that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. My hope rests with the wisdom and spine of the Climate Action Council members to create a final scoping plan that will achieve a healthy economy and greener future for New Yorkers now, and for generations to come. | ||
| Lori,Rose | As a homeowner I do not agree with omitting gas power appliances, vehicles etc. I can not afford to go solar nor I can afford electric vehicle. If this law goes into effect, I will sell my home and move of the state. I am all for making our environment better but this is beyond insane. | ||
| Richard,Dietrich | Business Card | The overall goals of this massive plan depends upon a large need for electricity. I am concerned that in the event of a nuclear EMP, our electric grid and current means of generation/distribution would be effectively destroyed. For this overall plan to be effective, protection of our electrical grid must be a priority. Transportation requiring all-electric vehicles, requires sufficient numbers of charging stations and adequate battery supply for these vehicles. Little towns, villages, and hamlets across America need to have those stations. It would seem necessary that electric lines must be buried underground and protected by a yet future protective covering for those lines. I believe this protection would far exceed the scope of the overall planned costs needed. In short, do not get the cart ahead of the cart: protect our electrical grid, then other things in the plan will fall into place. | |
| Greg,Goodridge | Private Engineering Consultant | I am attaching document that covers a number of topics but didn't want to check all the boxes so hit those I tried to focus on in my response. I did read the entire Draft Scoping Plan as well as Appendix G and took pages and pages of notes in the process. The plan has done a very good job in looking into the many aspects of this complex issue. In my attached response, I have addressed areas that concern me in the execution of portions of this plan. My main concern is that we've forced ourselves into goals in a timeframe that creates added cost and risk. I hope my concerns are considered by the panel and I am open to further expanding on these thoughts if members are interested to hear. | has attachment |
| Zachary,Schwartzman | |||
| Richard,Cummings | New York Propane Gas Association & National Propane Gas Association | ||
| Nika,Colley | Hello, my name is Nika Colley. I was born in Manhattan, NY, grew up in Tappan, NY, and I now study at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Extreme weather events caused by pollution and climate change have affected my communities through erratic weather patterns, a loss in biodiversity, and the changes in agriculture patterns. In addition, pollution from emissions and particulates have affected my communities through respiratory diseases and other illnesses that further injure our already marginalized communities. The CLCPA promised to address climate change while correcting its immediate and long-term effects on the lives of New Yorkers like me. That’s why the CLCPA must set clear year-by-year targets for replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources built for and by our communities. We need a guarantee that these targets will be met using proven renewable energy technologies– not false solutions. In addition, we need these solutions to support low-income and marginalized communities that have already suffered the brunt of harm from climate change and pollution. I am part of the next generation of New Yorkers, and I represent those younger than me who live in my communities. We need our representatives to hold our best interests at heart and protect us from the devastating impacts of fossil fuel emissions, pollution, and climate change. | ||
| Brandon,Restler | Environmental justice must come first! This means prioritizing the health and welfare of low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. When it comes to creating the inclusive green economy of New York's future, the plan must include strong public health guidelines and labor standards including prevailing wage, benefits, and local hire; funding for workforce development; and more. We can’t keep digging ourselves deeper into a hole. We must utilize proven renewable energy technologies and expand for renewable generation. We must shut down fossil fuel plants and focus on deploying proven renewable energy technologies and expanding battery storage. We should replace current fossil fuels that exacerbate pollution impacts on communities and fund the transition off of fossil fuels for workers and communities around these plants. We must set year-by-year targets for new wind, solar, and battery storage that champions just job development with permanence and benefits, and we must support green worker-owned cooperatives in partnership with organized labor and frontline communities. | ||
| Gerry,Minerd | Commenting as a NY resident & conce rned citizen. | I wholeheartedly support the Just Transition Working Group's recommendations to the Climate Action Council! I urge you to adopt their recommendations, as it's the right thing to do! We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. Again, please adopt these recommendations! So many people are counting on you! Thank You! Gerry Minerd | |
| Geraldine,Minerd | No organization - just a concerned citi zen! | To Whom it May Concern, I'm a resident of New York, a mother & grandmother, and a citizen who is deeply concerned about our damaged climate and how the impacts of "fixing" it will affect disadvantaged communities. Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. Please, I urge you to do whatever you can to ensure that disadvantaged communities will benefit as much as possible! I implore you. Thank You! | |
| Harrison,Watkins | New York State Laborers' Organizing F und | My name is Harrison Watkins and I am the Research Director for the NYS Laborers’ Organizing Fund, a labor organization representing 44,000 construction craft laborers across New York. I am writing to express the utmost support for New York’s upstate nuclear facilities, including the current language in The Climate Action Council’s (CAC) draft decarbonization Scoping Plan that affirms nuclear generation provides a significant amount of the state’s carbon-free baseload energy that will be needed well into the future. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act calls for 100% carbon free energy by 2040. The upstate nuclear facilities provide 3,300 megawatts of 24/7 carbon-free, safe, and reliable electricity and millions in taxes to support local communities. As one of upstate New York’s largest employers, the nuclear power stations also provide 25 thousand direct and indirect jobs desperately needed in the upstate economy. The CAC’s draft scoping plan includes a cost benefit analysis of the state’s economy-wide decarbonization goals, conducted by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). NYSERDA’s analysis assumes the upstate nuclear power stations continue for an additional 20 years of operation beyond their existing licenses. If the upstate nuclear fleet is not relicensed for an additional 20 years, NYSERDA’s analysis identifies additional consumer costs of $9.8 billion dollars to achieve the state’s decarbonization goals. Not to mention significant job losses. We cannot afford to lose this reliable source of clean generation and the associated jobs and economic benefits for the upstate economy. We support NYSERDA’s analysis and the draft Scoping Plan’s recommendation to have the Public Service Commission (PSC) review the existing ZEC program and strongly encourage the program’s extension. | |
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | |
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| John,Keevert | The JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC are right on target. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. there should be evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. We also need in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. Also needed are Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | ||
| John,Keevert | Going a net-zero economy is also an opportunity to address inequality and racism. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I request the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, not large corporations or minority-fronted shell companies. It is vital that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. To monitor success, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Extensive data collection is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | ||
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. I AM AN ARCHITECT IN ROCHESTER, NY. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. IN MY BUSINESS WITH CONSTRUCTION, I KNOW THERE WILL STILL BE GREAT NEED FOR WORKERS IN THE TRADES, BUT THEY WILL NEED TRAINING. i WANT THOSE WORKERS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE *ME* WITH ADVICE! HANDS-ON WORKERS ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | |
| Melissa,Carlson | Melissa Carlson, Architect | I AM AN ARCHITECT AND AM ENCOURAGING ALL MY CLIENTS TO BE NET ZERO, AND ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING. THOUGH I DON'T WORK WITH DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, I HAVE FRIENDS 'THERE'. Disadvantaged Communities suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations EVEN "NET-ZERO" IS A FALSE CLAIM. TRUE ZERO IS THE REAL GOAL! Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Allen,Blair | Citizen's Climate Lobby Rochester Cha pter | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. | |
| Jon,Randall | Town of Webster, NY | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs, subject to their ability to be successful. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | |
| Allen,Blair | Citizen's Climate Lobby Rochester Cha pter | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. | |
| Arthur,Rhoads | Please consider the diverse needs of the state population. Upstate new york has a great number of struggling communities. Towns and villages with aging population and losing population cannot afford to be left behind in this transition. May I please suggest the use of bundled investment to repurpose the many.old gasoline stations and service stations derelict throughout upstate new york. Many old service stations had leaking underground storage tanks and this has inhibited redevelopment of these parcels, often in village or hamlet centers. Please use generic solutions to pull the old tanks, clean the sites to commercial use standards with brownfield money, and repurpose the properties with EV charging stations and commercial/retail use. These old sites drag down aging communities. Redevelopment as part of transition to EV transportation will help rural and suburban new york retain and maintain population. In the less densely populated parts of the state EV transition will be reliant upon EV autos and pickup trucks not mass transit. A just transition will recognize the need to bundle brownfield funds, smart public investments and restoration of old delinquent sites to tax roles and the economy of rural communities. Thank you for considering creative and utilitarian ways to transition all parts of the state. Please recognize the rural needs and develop a final.plan that promotes diversity of solutions and recognizes the unique environment of all parts of new york. | ||
| Jim,Tappon | CCL Rohester | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Jon,Randall | Town of Webster, NY | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “blue/green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported pseudo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | |
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I therefore encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported techo-fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. It is imperative that DAC residents play leading roles in deciding how funds should be spent in their communities. Furthermore, the distribution of benefits to DACs should be verified through careful tracking and transparent reporting of how benefits are distributed and what impact they have. Such diligence is essential for ensuring that the 40% goal is met, and ideally exceeded, with long-term positive outcomes for NYS's most vulnerable residents. To ensure that it continues to reflect on-the-ground conditions and communities' needs over time, the DAC criteria must be reevaluated on an annual basis. Guardrails must also be in place to prevent gentrification and displacement in communities that are designated as DACs. | ||
| Brady,Fergusson | I support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | ||
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. I support Comprehensive Career Pathway Programs that develop career pathways into clean energy for existing and future workers, including workers transitioning from fossil fuel, clean energy industries, manufacturers, community-based organization, MWBEs, SDVOBs, and State/public workers. I believe the CAC and its Advisory Panels should have open dialogue among relevant stakeholders. Industry skills gaps, employee demand, and training needs must be identified and assessed and taken into consideration as policies and programs are developed. | |
| David,Berman | The Law Office of David Berman, Esq. | Dear Climate Action Council, I believe that climate goals for 2030 and 2050 are important, but we need immediate and decisive action. We need more solar and wind power now. Your plan needs to include working-class New Yorkers. It should provide them financial incentives to electrify their homes and businesses by reducing costs, not using measures that shift costs onto those who are already having a hard time. Your plan needs programs that incentivize EV, motorcycle, and hybrid ("EV") use by exempting these vehicles from the NYC congestion tax, perhaps reducing the fines for VTL violations caused by EVs, or creating programs that reduce driver's license points if drivers purchase an EV. You must make EV vehicles more affordable for the working class by increased tax rebates, subsidies, toll waivers, service credits provided by the government, free sales tax or any other possible vehicle that can advance the conversion to EV vehicles. You must identify and protect old-growth forests on NYS land and on private land. Those Old-growth forests on private land should be sought out, purchased by the state, and protected by the strictest means possible from development. The State of New York needs to invest actively in land acquisition to protect intact forests and actively reforest public lands. Large budgets should be allocated to destroying invasive species like HWA that threaten to destroy the Catskill and Adirondack Forever Wild forests. You should study whether the DEC's Deer Management Focus Area should be applied to Long Island and Westchester to improve forest health and reduce invasive plants. Finally, I deeply critique the "forestry" section of your report which, to withstand any degree of scrutiny, must cite reliable research that details the role of old forests in long-term carbon storage. Thank you for taking the time to review my comment. Kindest regards, David Berman, Esq. | |
| Katherine,Slye-Hernandez | First, forcing people to heat their homes with electricity while the costs of such just continue to rise, which is always more expensive than natural gas, will be crippling for many residents. There are also issues with requiring new construction to be carbon-free. If you increase the cost of construction of say an apartment building, the prices for each unit will be higher and out of reach of many in the state, which is already a problem in many areas, especially urban areas of NY. Again, you mention monetary support for these changes, but that money just comes from the pockets of the residents who you are claiming to help with said money. And just because you think a family can afford it doesn't mean you are right; you do not know the debt they are trying to pay back or their costs each month, so setting any sort of income limit on receiving assistance would harm many whom you think could afford to pay for such changes. This is not an endorsement of any sort of assistance, but instead points out flaws in the plan to force these changes and issues that seem to have been overlooked or at least not clearly considered. | ||
| Katherine,Slye-Hernandez | First, the cost of electric vehicles is still well out of reach of most consumers under normal circumstances, much less in the coming years if the current inflation is not under control. You claim they are on par with current gas vehicles, but not that most residents of NY can afford; the average price now is about $56K. Second is the costs associated with upgrading the entire state electrical grid to allow for safe, at-home charging; it is unrealistic to expect businesses to continue to provide free charging once you force everyone to have an electric vehicle, nor is it realistic to expect everyone to go and wait for a charge, which will take longer than filling a tank. Third, with the price of electricity rising, this is just again another cost to residents in a world where people are struggling to make ends meet as it is. Your "rebates" are just going to come from taxpayer dollars, which would likely mean increases in taxes since that is the only way the government has money. | ||
| Kelvin,Herrala | IBEW Local 325 | It is time to clean up the air and make wise environmental decisions . This needs to be done thoroughly and wisely that includes thinking every action through to the end . If we move forward as we are doing closing all of our power generating facilities throughout the state we not only put people who live in New York and pay taxes here in New York but we loose control over the option of transitioning into providing cleaner power to supply our homes and businesses . We have nuclear energy generating clean power now and are shutting them down . This power will have to be replaced from out of state or even out of the country power such as Canada .That power could come from coal or gas fired generating sources that we have no authority to put plans in place to reduce emissions on the generating facility . Here we could utilize and put in place the latest carbon capture technology on powerhouses that are already here located in New York State .We need to count the emissions from all power used by New York State as our own .If it is generated in Canada and we use it then we need to claim it.If it is Generated out of state and we use it ,again we need to claim the emissions as our own . There is no bubble around the state saying you are clean isn't actually being clean . The rest of the world is on record pace increasing the use of coal and gas for power generation and we would be joining that group by closing our powerhouses .We are years away from having any significant amount of wind , solar and battery storage here in New York State to meet our power demands . We need to adapt , report , figure out what the increased power demands will be for electric heat , charging stations to power our homes and businesses.We need time to install charging stations and infrastructure to meet the demands that will be coming with the implementation of widespread use . If that is not in place for widespread use by the people and they can not charge their vehicles rejection will follow. | |
| Joanne,Coons | Hudson Valley Community College | It is hard to not check off all the boxes when asked what part of the CLCPA I would like to address. They are all important and intertwine with each other. As a NYS Biology, Earth Science, Environmental Science and PV Instructor, I appreciate all living and non living things interact and how energy in it many forms affect our world. (physically, politically, emotionally, chemically) I have respect for nature and feel we can learn much from how our natural world operates. We have quite frankly screwed things up and now is our chance to make our best attempt at righting our wrongs. I don’t care if we are not representing “special interest” groups to make them financially secure, it is an all hands on deck moment and we all need to do our part. Policy is very important in this process. It is all about carbon and any measure we can take to stop producing carbon through any means we NEED to do Now. So please don’t think that setting aggressive dates and policy to electrify everything from a non carbon source is something we can put off. As an educator I know we can all do this. Education is the key to change. Start from kindergarten thru high school and the children will bring the message home. Public announcements and campaigns are important and our government needs to walk the talk with electrifying our public buildings, transportation, reducing waste, and strong policy. I am glad to live in NYS as they are leading the way, our example will help others to follow this essential path to reduce climate change. Without these actions the world faces death, destruction, misery, health crisis, lost of infrastructure, crop failure, water loss, and more. What is the price of that? We have two distinct, defined paths to take, I can’t control what others do but I will do my best to live my life carbon free and hope to inspire others to do so as well. I will be grateful to you forever to be as aggressive as possible when deciding policy as I care so much about our | |
| Tina,Wilkins | This climate act is just not very good finically. I don’t agree with all of theses choices to stop people from cooking on gas, drying clothes with gas, heating with gas, and hot water tanks with gas. Why would you put people in more debt when using electric cost more??? They raise the cost every year. Why would people make choices for others on how they should heat their homes, what they should use to cook at their homes heat with there homes and warm water with their homes??? What has happen to our freedom?? I feel our freedom is being taking away. I have to members of my family who are on SSD and we are having a very hard time making ends meet now let alone do this climate act . We will be paying triple the amount that we pay for gas. People should not be forced to do what’s not finically ok for them. My whole house is basically on gas. People have been using gas for a very long time and it didn’t hurt them before hand. Please let people make there own choices when it comes to what they want to do inside there homes. Stop evading our rights. I feel if NY does go through with this you are going to find many people move out of NY State and it will become a ghosts town because people want there freedom and NY State it’s taking our freedom away slowly. I know if NY keeps doing what they are doing I will be moving out of New York State. New York State is making very hard for people to live especially when you are on a very low income as it is. SSD don’t pay very much we don’t get raises every year. We don’t make $15.00-18.00 an hour like people who can work. We didn’t ask to be out on SSD either. Our health has caused us problems to work so we get punished for being sick. New York State has become a very sad state to live in and people keep adding more rules but the people that add theses rules don’t live like we have to everyday. If more people walked in our shoes they may see things very differently. We are always trying to find cheaper ways to live but now peopl | ||
| Grace,Mok | I want the Climate Action Council to finalize a plan that gets us off fossil fuels as early as possible and invests in disadvantaged communities to the greatest possible extent. I support bold action to transform our economy in order to provide a more just, green and clean future. ***This means banning fracked gas.*** | ||
| Ali,Connolly | |||
| Jackie,Weisberg | 350Brooklyn | We cannot let the CLCPA become a vehicle for wrong or inadequate answers to the “how” of getting to zero emissions, because it will soon be too late if implementation of our climate laws falls short of what was promised to the people. “False solutions” to the climate crisis, each of which is marketed, often by fossil fuel interests themselves, as a “renewable” or “clean” or “low-carbon” alternative to fossil fuels. These false solutions are the wrong direction for our state. First, production of these alternative fuels is often carbon-intensive--compared to fossil fuels, some of these false solutions literally add more greenhouse gas emissions than they reduce. Many of these fuels must be combusted to produce energy, which leads to more local pollution. Environmental justice communities will not see adequate reductions in toxic pollution, and thus adverse public health impacts, as long as we continue to combust fuels for energy. Reliance on “bioenergy” diverts land use from food to energy, depletes the earth’s ability to recycle carbon, and contributes to water pollution. Low Carbon Fuel Standard legislation in the New York State Legislature has support from gas and biofuel interests, but no environmental justice groups are behind this effort. Under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, biofuels are excluded from eligibility for the law’s strictly limited carbon offset program. "LOW CARBON" DOES NOT MEAN LESS POLLUTION OR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BIOFUELS POLLUTE COMMUNITIES Because biomethane and fossil fuels both emit similar levels of nitrous oxide upon combustion, biomethane is not considered any "cleaner" from the perspective on environmental justice communities plagued by highways and traffic. Increasing the supply of biomethane will only serve to further lock-in gas infrastructure. | |
| Leo,Cohen | I support the third scenario put forth by the CAC. The scoping plan must ensure that the mandates put forth to regulate sectors and entities that contribute to carbon emissions are legally enforceable. The transportation sector must greatly diminish its reliance on fossil fuels and become completely fueled by clean sources of electric energy. The use of fossil fuels and gases in the transportation sectors is not only problematic due to the environmental impact but also has a major economic impact as a result of rising gas prices. The scoping plan must reject false solutions such as the usage of natural “renewable” gases and instead emphasize the use of proven forms of energy such as wind and solar energy sources. The scoping plan must support the growth of the clean energy sector and promote the expansion of unionized jobs in the clean energy sector to make up for the loss of any jobs in industries that are regulated by the scoping plan. Clean energy efforts must also target investments of clean energy and appliance in lower and middle income communities in order to ensure safe housing and the development of these communities. | ||
| Gayle,Alexander | My boxes would not click…. Anyway, I do not want to become Texas 2021 when they had their ice storm. I live in the North Country (the Adirondack Mts), winter temps dip well below ZERO for days on end. Can we say “Polar Vortex”? We have NO natural gas available to us…..and green alternatives are not where they need to be. Stop thinking about outlawing fossil fuels and put your efforts into developing alternatives. Then, the changeover will be possible….. I vote NO on the entire bill….too soon, not possible out the city. | ||
| Mary,McConnell | I am against New York States Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan. I understand that we need to reduce things that are bad for the environment, but to impose laws that restrict our abilities as United States Citizens to make decisions on our own is truly not “The American Way”. Thank you, Mary | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | My name is jacqueline ayorinde and I live in Rush NY. I am a retired educator, a climate advocate with RocACTS, and RAICA, a mom, a grandparent, and an artist. Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of disadvantaged communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less the benefit from economic growth around them. I wholeheartedly support the JTWG’s recommendations to the CAC. We must provide assistance directly to workers who lose jobs or otherwise are displaced by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Such support should include training and employment counseling, financial support during the transition, and retirement assistance if the impacted worker is sufficiently close to retirement age or suffers health issues that limit the ability to find new employment. I support the evaluation and enhancement of labor standards to promote family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits and to promote pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship training and other programs to assist in finding good pathways into jobs. I believe in targeted financial support for businesses with a focus on DACs, MWBE’s, SDVOB’s, as well as training curricula and programs developed with a focus on DACs. | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | My name is jacqueline ayorinde and I live in Rush NY. I am a retired educator, a climate advocate with RocACTs, RAICA, a mom, a grandparent, and artist. Our transition to a net-zero economy presents an opportunity to right some historic wrongs. We must not continue to leave behind members of Disadvantaged Communities, who suffer adverse impacts of pollution and other environmental harms disproportionately to their representation in the general population and derive disproportionately less of the benefit from economic growth around them. I, therefore, encourage the Climate Action Council to fully adopt the recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group and reject false solutions that would perpetuate the use of fossil fuels and harm residents of Disadvantaged Communities and other vulnerable populations (e.g., “renewable natural gas,” “green hydrogen,” and other industry-supported -fixes). Benefits are hard to quantify; money is not. DACs could be cheated by shady accounting of “benefits.” To ensure that the benefits of investment (1) stay in DACs (rather than enriching corporate executives and shareholders who live elsewhere) and (2) lead to measurable positive outcomes for community residents, benefits should equal money directly invested in DAC households and community-based organizations, to the greatest extent possible. | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance forrecycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| jacqueline,ayorinde | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | ||
| Eden,Whitaker | Newer constructed homes under current standard building codes of NY are so efficient in how much fossil fuel is used to heat compared to less insulated structures, so out of that residential statistic I'd imagine very little of that is due to newer homes. Electrification of space heating with high efficiency heat pumps is NOT a viable, cost effective approach for a consumer if it requires changing complete heating, cooking, backup, etc. systems. Neither is relying on solar, wind, and battery backup for when the grid can't support the electric. And Water regulated heat pumps require well drilling with sufficient flow rates (extreme water usage is my understanding) which effects the aqua fir changing supply levels and quality of the water. Just building our dream & final home with 2 forced hot air furnaces, 2 modeen garage furnaces, hot water on demand system, heated in ground pool, 2 custom Built in fireplaces, a customer kitchen designed around a 36 inch gas stove, and a house back up generator (because electric goes out quite frequently), and all operate on propane. We have invested everything we have into our new, extremely efficient home that uses very little electric & affordable fuel usage compared to our last home... all unknowingly of the Climate Act of 2019 that would expect us to be 100% fossil fuel free in 18 years. That is not just. I do not feel there NYS government has provided public awareness of the Climate Act and the actions being taken. | ||
| Kathleen,Lauzon | Here in Franklin County NY some areas do not have electric supply lines. What will those people do? It costs a small fortune to have National Grid extend lines to these remote places/homes. Have you thought about our frequent power outages? What will we do for days when we do not have electric power in our homes? Freeze? Loose precious food to lack of refrigeration? We travel up to 60 miles a day to get to work, how will electric cars handle that commute (especially in below freezing weather)? New Natural Gas lines have recently been placed on and around State Route 11. Much money was spent on this important project. Now it will be useless. Housing is already nearly unaffordable for many. This will eliminate the goal of being a home owner for most New Yorkers. We are loosing New Yorkers every day to states with less regulations. How many more will be forced to move just to be able to survive. This plan will be devastation to Northern New Yorkers (north of Albany and Route 90). Please rescind this outrageous plan. | ||
| Sam,Shipherd | We need to move quickly and get to full electrification. Stop dragging your heels and take aggressive action. In the process, you can be responsible for creating more jobs (sooner!), and we'll all reap the benefits. We are required to reach a zero emissions electric grid. The plan must avoid recommendations that will perpetuate the combustion of fuels to generate electricity. Please, do what is right and truly necessary. Thank you for your work on this important shift. | ||
| Anntonette,Alberti | National Grid | ||
| Mark,Dunlea | Green Education and Legal Fund | This is GELF's updated testimony to the version we submitted a few days ago. | |
| Rhiannon,Sisson | Sisson's Chain Saws & Stoves, Inc | ||
| Gerrit,Bruhaug | I am writing to urge you to expand the electricity sector to match the scientific consensus that more than just wind and solar are needed. The latest UN reports put nuclear power as the lowest CO2/kWh and it is broadly expected that nuclear power will need to grow to meet our climate goals. The ability to provide reliable power cannot be understated, especially as we expand the grid via large scale electrification of the economy. The bare minimum would be to add in a focus on extending the lifetime of our currently operating nuclear plants. They easily can safely operate to 2050 providing clean, reliable power the entire time. Beyond that New York should look to use our long heritage in nuclear energy and connections to the future of nuclear technology and focus on building more power plants. We have local companies building nuclear power plants over in Canada, when the focus should be building them here! We also have top tier fusion research facilities and that capability should be leveraged to potentially develop fusion reactors into our power plan. A focus on just renewables, and especially just wind and solar, is not scientific, not good for New York and not going to meet our climate goals. | ||
| Andrew,Yurchak | I am completely opposed to the go green agenda as it will be impossible to implement. There is no way that our energy needs can be met by wind/solar/water. In the meantime, China and India are building coal fired power plants negating everything that we do. Toyota just announced a new all electric car that costs $42,000.00 plus with a range of about 252 miles. Wonderful!!! Who can afford it? And what is the range in the winter? And what will it cost to replace the batteries? | ||
| Catharine,Conley | personal comment | The overall goals of this plan are appropriate and necessary to reduce the effects of overconsumption and release of greenhouse gasses. However, the focus on business-as-usual large-scale energy production, even if renewable, is unlikely to achieve both decarbonization and climate justice for rural as well as urban residents -- what's really needed is renewable energy production and storage *at point of use*, or as nearby as feasible. Solar arrays are suitable for installation in many urban environments, but large monoculture solar or wind farms are more environmentally damaging and less sustainable, in rural contexts, than multi-purpose distributed solar installations such as agrivoltaics. Small-scale hydropower is relatively neglected in this plan, yet has the potential for widespread and consistent (even at night) local renewable energy production across many communities: in rural settings low-head flow based systems can be suitable even for small streams, while in urban buildings turbines can be installed in-line with plumbing and wastewater systems. An additional benefit is that placing distributed hydropower installations in disadvantaged communities could also improve stormwater management of increasingly extreme weather outbreaks. This shift to local production and storage would require an associated a shift in business model for energy companies, from production and metered sale to service and technical support of local equipment One example of such a model is Ma Bell: before the antitrust breakup, AT&T was responsible for installation and maintenance of a large fraction of residential and commercial telephones in the US, and this operating model made it an extremely successful global company for over a century. | |
| Mark,Dunlea | Green Education and Legal Fund | ||
| Robert,Meyers | I just paid $7,000 on a natural gas fed backup Generac Generator. What is the plan for that? | ||
| Ron,Roth | Independent Consultant | The Plan must take into account the fact that attractive parks - and the uses if their surrounding architecture, will directly and indirectly affect air quality. Directly linked to this observation is the fact that attractive streetscape design on there thoroughfares - including considerations of mixed-use - can serve not only to increase walkability, but to draw visitors away from their cars, and to encourage mass transit. I can be contacted directly for more specifics on this paradigm, the Peripheries Initiative, on which I've received many positive reviews from landscape architecture firms. . | |
| Daniel,Hunt | Heating with wood is quite inexpensive. ~2,500 square feet for ~$500 per year. If times are hard, we can cut and split our own deadwood off our property by hand. Forcing us to abandon our heating appliances would be very costly at the onset and ongoing. Our incomes are already moving in the negative, thanks to current inflation rates. Regarding infrastructure, as it is, we lose power several times per year. When this happens in the winter, we can care for ourselves and continue to heat our home. With home heating that relies on electricity, we would be dependent on infrastructure that could not consistently support us. Leave us alone. | ||
| Dale,Ricker | It appears that once again the State of New York is trying to put businesses last and force residents to leave for other states. The state legislature lead by the Democrat majority is so busy finding ways to tax it’s businesses and residents and pocketing money from lobbyists, that it has stopped caring about the people who pay their salaries. This is another example of left wing nonsense. Anyone with a high school education can find sources that will back whatever viewpoint they want to make. Until China and India decide to slow the carbon footprint, anything that we do is meaningless. Your plan will force energy prices up even more than they are. I guess 8% inflation isn’t enough for you. Try living in this state on a small pension and social security with Medicare as your health insurance. It’s time you start looking out for the residents of this great state while there is still some to look out for. | ||
| Rebecca,Schenk | NO to the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan I am totally against the Climate Action Draft Plan in it’s current form. Banning new gas service, sales of gas appliances, and the sale of gasoline automobiles all within the next two to fifteen years would be devastating on businesses and consumers. Our electrical grid is not currently able to handle the enormous increase in consumption this would cause. The average NY resident cannot afford the cost of an electric vehicle. Also, those of us who live in the snow belt areas need gas or diesel 4 wheel drive vehicles and their power. I have owned solar and wind generators for my private home. I am very familiar with the cost of the systems, including the batteries needed for energy storage. Current technology makes it impossible to power even my small home using only solar and/or wind in an affordable way. The cost of solar and wind generators and batteries is extremely high compared to other forms of electric generation. There is concerns over how to recycle solar panels, wind generators, batteries, etc. once their useful life is over. | ||
| robert,peck | I do not believe this is a well though out plan and feel like it does not compromise at all with people who hold alternate beliefs. Climate change should not be a priority. Lithium and heavy metal mining is horrible for the environment and marginalizes minorities in the countries leading in rare earth mineral mining (China/ Afghanistan, etc) Instead the focus should be on bringing slow change backed up by long term data. If NY & other Government officials were really committed to this "IDEA" they would not travel on private planes, buy ocean front properties, and increase their family wealth through climate change business and organizations. Trust me when I say even the dumb high schoolers are starting to se through the charades here. Fair market competition between carbon based fuels and electric should be the deciding factor for how we proceed with energey usage in the US. | ||
| Diane,Matza | Each year the IPCC report warns us of the climate catastrophe to come if we continue to burn fossil fuels, and yet that is what we are doing. Even here in NY, where we have passed the most ambitious climate mitigation legislation, New York has failed to live up to the promise of that leadership. We must act now, and a vigorous Scoping Plan for a just transition to zero emissions, is the way to achieve our goals. I've been aware of the crisis for the last 50 years, and I have tried to do my part by keeping the heat in my house to 62 degrees in winter, foregoing AC, buying a Prius and then 4 years ago a Prius Prime. I have contracted with a local company to install a heat pump system. But individual action is not enough, and too many people do not have the resources to alter their carbon footprint without government help. Right now, buildings account for 30% of emissions in the state. Reliance on natural gas or oil in those buildings creates pollution disastrous for public health, especially in low income and minority communities. The All Electric Building Act is the way to transition justly to renewable heat in those buildings, but oil and gas companies and their abettors in the legislature have conducted a misinformation campaign about this, as well as other issues to be addressed by the scoping plan. Members of the Assembly and Legislature must understand that New York cannot afford, either monetarily or in displacement of human beings, the inaction we have recently seen. Billions of dollars have already been spent to mitigate the disasters, primarily flooding, the state has experienced across the last decade. I urge you to show New York can really be a climate leader by transforming our economy to one that operates on clean energy. | ||
| Dan,Schulz | Schulz | Shifting to carbon neutral renewables is a good idea. Doing it too quickly is a bad idea. What is the true cost of millions of batteries, mining of minerals for them and disposal the problems? | |
| john,mcconville | I am concerned about climate change, but extremely worried that current plans to eliminate all energy sources but electricity will prove devastating for NY families and businesses, without significantly improving our climate. There are numerous proposals in the New York Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plans that concern me. First, the Council proposes that existing homes be required to convert to electric heat pumps with electric back-up systems, despite the likelihood that this could cost upwards of $20,000 per home. Most heat pumps lose efficiency around 32 degrees, and electric back-up systems are extremely inefficient and costly to operate. Further, the draft plan ignores that the cost of electricity in New York is already expensive – with average residential rates 28 percent higher than the national average. It is hard to imagine that the prosed changes will not send electric rates even higher, which will disproportionately hurt lower- and middle-income New Yorkers. Second, the plans call for rapid escalation of electricity demand at the very same time the electric grid would lose access to natural gas and oil, which currently produce the majority of electricity in the state, especially in winter. Power outages are commonplace in New York. In 2020, New York had the had the highest System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) score in the Census Bureau’s Middle Atlantic Division, and well above the national average. The scope and speed of the shift to renewables has never been done on this scale, and threaten the security of our energy supply. With a strained grid, homes and businesses must have balanced energy choices to ensure resiliency. The Council’s proposal indicates decarbonization is only possible through electrification. This is false. Traditional fuels that are increasingly renewable – including natural gas, propane gas, and biofuel heating oil – are reducing emissions across the housing, commercial, and transportation sectors today. | ||
| Frank,Frandina | Citizen | •The probation on new gas services beginning in 2024 is premature. The expanding grid requirements for electric vehicle charging are already overtaxing the grid. The 2024 date should be extended until the date when the grid could reliability handle 100% of the projected load plus a reasonable reserve for generation outages. •Page 130 (Chapter 12 Buildings) says "In the State’s coldest regions, where heating systems are designed for temperatures of zero (0F) or lower, some homes that install cold climate ASHPs may therefore use supplemental heat (wood, home heating." In WHY, and most of upstate, we have a few days below zero every winter. The probation on new gas services should not apply upstate until some future date when economical, alternative heating sources are available. oil, propane, or gas) for peak cold conditions to avoid unnecessary oversizing of heat pumps and to mitigate electric grid impacts. •With the frequency of power outages, many have been installing gas fired emergency generators. Without gas, we will be deprived of backup power, assuming diesel generators are also banned. •Current state residential codes require that outside air be brought into homes on a continuous basis, negating the code requirements for a tight building envelope. Most builders take the lowest initial cost approach resulting inthe 24/7/365 operation of blower motors and heating outside air that is brought into the house per code wasting much energy. The volume of air exchanged should be reduced and the codes should prohibit the most inefficient systems. •I suspect that the cost benefits are overstated. But it would be useful to see the costs stated as $ / citizen / year. •It appears that the health benefits would only be realized by those downwind. Those of us in WNY would not realize the benefits unless Pennsylvania, Ohio and Ontario adopted similar restrictions. In summary, the plan seems unrealistic and would only be another reason to leave the state. | |
| Julia,Scull | NO! NO! NO! to the proposed green energy plan that will eliminate natural gas service to buildings and homes!! How do you think you can disrupt so many lives like this? And force everyone to change from natural gas that we have had for decades, to renewable energy that will require an enormous amount of money that we DO NOT HAVE! If everyone is forced to change to electric, what happens when the power goes out? We have NO HEAT, NO HOT WATER, AND NO STOVE TO COOK ON! Stop this ridiculous thinking that will forever disrupt lives and livelihood! WE DO NOT HAVE MONEY FOR SUCH A CHANGE! If this passes, rest assured that people will be looking to change political parties, and I will be among them. Enough said. Thank you for your time. | ||
| Christine,Arroyo | I support bold action to transform our economy in order to provide a more just, green and clean future. This was always needed and has become even more urgent in light of Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine. I want the Climate Action Council to finalize a plan that gets us off fossil fuels as early as possible and invests in disadvantaged communities to the greatest possible extent | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | IBM Research | Please see the uploaded document. Thank you. | has attachment |
| Martha,Viglietta | Thank you for the climate act. We need policy at the state and federal level to push emissions down rapidly because time is getting short. Carbon pricing will use market forces to push choices toward green alternatives and rationalize the pricing of fossil fuels rather than subsidizing them. They are costing us untold amounts of health, wealth, and planetary welfare. By pairing a fee on carbon extraction with a refunding of the fee to individual households, we will drive the price of fossil fuels up while protecting most wallets from increasing energy costs. Modeling data and studies of existing carbon pricing schemes show what thousands of economists and scientists have been saying for years: carbon pricing is the most efficient and powerful way to lower emissions rapidly, while protecting the economy. | ||
| Kanwaldeep,Sekhon | |||
| John,DiVirgilio | Another brilliant idea that will cost New Yorkers more money. No thanks | ||
| Christine,O'Malley | Historic Ithaca | The section on buildings needs to discuss and propose alternatives to demolition. There needs to be a push for deconstruction as the mandated practice when an existing building is being removed and there needs to be an emphasis on reusing building materials. Construction and demolition debris accounts for a large portion of most landfills and this plan needs to address this critical issue by advocating for deconstruction and the reuse of building materials. Deconstruction ordinances and rules to require it in communities must be part of our sustainable future. | |
| Nivo,Rovedo | Sierra Club | I write in support of bold action to transform our economy in order to provide a more just, green and clean future. I want the Climate Action Council to finalize a plan that gets us off fossil fuels as early as possible and invests in disadvantaged communities to the greatest possible extent. The final scoping plan must call on New York State to immediately eliminate incentives for new gas, including the gas utility obligation to serve, and the requirement for utilities to subsidize the first 100 feet of gas lines to interconnect new buildings. The state must also end utility marketing of gas and prioritize non-pipe alternatives for all heating expansion projects. These incentives must be coupled with state investments in heating affordability for low-income residents. The final scoping plan must come out strongly in support of a 2024 date for all-electric new construction. We have the technology, and many developers are already building all-electric new buildings. Retrofits will make our homes better, safer places to live (removing mold, lead, asbestos) as well as protecting our climate. The scoping plan must direct the PSC to begin a climate-focused gas planning proceeding to develop a coordinated and equitable strategy to wean the state from its present reliance on gas heating. Regarding the electric sector, n the final scoping plan we need a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel power plants. We can’t keep digging ourselves deeper into this hole. New York’s focus must remain on deployment of proven renewable energy technologies and expanding battery storage. We can’t rely on false solutions and hypothetical technologies like RNG (“renewable” natural gas) and carbon capture and storage. We are in a critical decade for building out a huge fleet of renewable generation, and shutting down fossil fuel plants. The state must specifically plan to retire and replace current fossil fuel plants, and must provide funding and support for both workers & communities | |
| SUZANNE,COOGAN | I support bold action to transform our economy in order to provide a more just, green and clean future. I want the Climate Action Council to finalize a plan that gets us off fossil fuels as early as possible and invests in disadvantaged communities to the greatest possible extent. | ||
| Leonard,Rodberg | NY Eneergy and Climate Advocates | The plan itself recognizes that “wind, water and sunlight” are not sufficient. The state’s report admits that the goal of producing electricity free of greenhouse gas emissions “cannot currently be met by the deployment of these existing [renewable] technologies. Current studies identify that, even after full deployment of available clean energy technologies, there is a remaining need for 15 to 25 gigawatts of electricity generation in 2040 to meet demand and maintain reliability.” In the state’s plan, this firm source operates for just about 10 days a year, mostly in the winter when the sky is overcast and little or no wind is present. Once this large source is built, shouldn’t we run it full-time and reduce the need for much of the solar and wind currently in the plan? Treat it as the backbone of the system, rather than as only a limited backup. This would be especially cost-effective if the fuel consumed by running full-time added little to the cost. This is exactly the case with nuclear power, where fuel costs are just about 5% of the total cost of a plant. Many fewer solar and wind installations would be needed, and costs would be very much lower. I estimate that, with this approach, barely a dozen 2-gigawatt nuclear plants, like the now-shuttered Indian Point facility, could replace as much as 90% of the solar and wind power required by the State’s plan. More than $100 billion would be saved. | |
| Mike,Adrian | I would like to understand who is doing the actual study for the CLCPA's plan. Has anyone looked at the real impact of switching everything over to electric. Not only will the existing grid not support the added load, most of todays electric is still produced using fossil fuels. While some green energy is available (hydro) the impact to produce the batteries for storage and the short life span of windmill blades make me think there is little to no real benefit over clean natural gas. The simple fact that the waste produced by "green energy" is never discussed raises questions. What happens to the windmill blades? Why are they buried instead of being recycled? What about the millions of solar panel that are currently being installed? Where are they going to end up? Why aren't we shifting to micro grids to reduce energy loss on the current systems? | ||
| Bridget,McFadden | Sierra Club Lower Hudson | I support bold action to transform our economy in order to provide a more just, green and clean future. I want the Climate Action Council to finalize a plan that gets us off fossil fuels as early as possible and invests in disadvantaged communities to the greatest possible extent. | |
| Lisa,Harrison | Despite much bravado, NYS has done very little to address the climate crisis. To seriously address climate breakdown we must: - Immediately stop building and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. - Stop all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel. - Ban gas hookups in new buildings. - Reject false solutions such as carbon capture, hydrogen, biofuel, or importing Canadian hydropower. - Support and fund in-state wind, solar and offshore wind generation. Cut through the red tape and nimbyism that has been delaying this development at the scale that is needed. - Fund/incentivize energy efficiency and conservation programs. - Incentivize electric vehicles and provide adequate charging stations. - Require mandatory composting statewide. - End the domination of our power systems by investor-owned corporate utilities and transition to real Public Power. | ||
| Terry,Gordon | Retired | This legislation is another over reach by the democrat controlled majority in Albany. Like it or not, we are going to be fossil fuel dependent for the next 20 to 30 years as new technology is introduced and perfected. I fully agree we should be aware of our climate changes but in the same breath we can not load excessive expense on the residents of NY and create financial hardships on them. I an totally opposed to this new legislation and wish Albany would put more focus on reducing spending and the tax burden that is forcing residents to move to other tax favorable states. PS. The Mario Cuomo bridge should renamed the Tappan Zee Bridge, that is a total embarrassment. Terry Gordon Queensbury | |
| Dale,Graybill | Before embarking on a plan to reduce fossil fuels, how about making sure our grid is able to handle the additional load. The goal should be to make the energy safer, affordable and dependable. This year alone, my power was out several times, one time for four days, I might add this was during the coldest winter months. The prices for energy is already out of control and aggressive policies put additional burdens on families. This is very hard on the elderly, who already struggle with record high inflation, increased electric bills, gasoline, and natural gas prices. This will force more people to leave a high tax state, that offers very little to keep our citizens here. It is good to be a leader state, I agree with the concept of renewable energy, but not to make laws that damage our citizens by setting impossible goals. Look at the disaster that is California, power grid problems, fires, mismanagement. Thank you, Dale G. | ||
| Terry,Rhoton | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. Working in the natural gas industry has been a life saver for my family. Heating homes and buildings with natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of heat. | ||
| Sonnie,Raffety | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Melissa ,Tower | While I am in agreement with reducing Carbon Footprint I find much of the proposed plan impractical and devastating to the economy for much of NYS. This plan discriminates against those of us that live 20 minutes from so called civilization. There are no Uber, taxi, buses, subway etc. to use as alternative transportation. Most homes are heated by oil, propane, wood or gas. The closest natural gas is 20 min away and won’t “run lines” down my road. Even though I live 20 min from Niagara Falls most of the electric power is syphoned off by NYC. There are no plans for new power plants built to accept the increased demand for power and our electric bills have doubled since January 2020. How do you expect civilians to navigate safely in fall, winter or spring when power grids go down due to severe weather events and we can’t supplement our survival without gas stoves, fireplaces and supplemental heat. What will happen to our food prices when they will more than triple due to the costs that will be incurred on the farmers as they try to upgrade -changing planting, harvesting and transporting on such a delicate schedule with Mother Nature as well as thousand of acres of farmland being sold to solar farms. These proposals for legislation will increase the exodus of people like myself who prefer the solitude of rural life, use a gas stove to preserve my own home grown food to decrease costs and prefer to live outside the chaos of modern civilization. | ||
| Yvonne ,Hammell | NO on draft Scoping Plan, NO on the decommissioning of the natural gas system in NY. I have a right to my clean natural gas range, my clean natural gas generator and my my clean natural gas furnace. | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | Please see my attached comment. Thank you. | has attachment | |
| Jerry,Michael | The scoping plan is certainly timely. Influenced (and paid) by the fossil fuel industry, politicians have been kicking this can down the road for way too long. That said, politicians, regulatory agencies, and the media have too often subordinated science and objective, factual data to positions deemed to be "politically correct", or perhaps better-stated, "acceptable to the public". The strategies outlined to reach "zero emissions" simply will not get us there without as yet undefined new technologies. We cannot afford the risk of those new technologies not becoming available in time, or other, unplanned events disrupting the idealistic timetable. (Putin's war a case in point). The low-hanging fruit to fill in the gaps in the scoping plan is nuclear-generated electricity. Modern nuclear plants are safe, and many European countries are (frantically) reassessing this carbon-free energy source, both for environmental reasons and to reduce dependency on Russia. Political leadership and the DEC need to embark on an aggressive campaign to educate the public on the safety of, and critical need for including nuclear as an element of our zero emissions strategy. | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling POW cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | |
| Rebecca,Guthrie | 2nd Bite Farm | I received alarmist communication from my propane provider, urging me to speak out against this plan. That seems like a short-sighted position to me, and so I'd like to speak in support of transitioning to primarily electricity that is generated in a primarily renewable way. My voice won't ring as loud as the propane company, but I support this plan. | |
| Katherine,Stuart | The plan is absurd for anyone outside city limits and unaffordable for anyone on a fixed income. We live in the Adirondack Mtns. The temps during the day mid-winter are often below zero. 1. How do you expect an electric vehicle to get us home? Our commutes are often 60 minutes or longer. 2. How do you expect average New Yorkers to afford an electric vehicle? 3. How do you expect our 75 year old parents to purchase one of these vehicles on their Social Security check or to find a charging station? NEW YORKERS CANNOT AFFORD YOUR PLAN!!!!! | ||
| Kevin,Jones | Two areas of the plan could be further expanded: Transportation electrification - the plan should advocate for additional electrification of commuter and intercity rail in NYS. Given proper incentives (tax credits, etc) at the Federal level, high capacity freight lines could be induced to electrify. Electricity generation - I feel the plan relies too heavily on renewable energy sources that are interruptible. The State should be encouraging the siting of Small Modular Reactors to provide steady, reliable, carbon free electric power to meet the huge increase in electric demand anticipated. | ||
| Jon,Randall | Town of Webster, NY | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have: 1) strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters 2) programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. 3) Priority must be on polluters in DACs as well as the largest overall polluters. State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products 1) Mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives 1) Green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be available to all residents, especially members of DACs and BIPOC communities Carbon capture and storage must be considered only when there is no alternative. It must not be used to extend the use of fossil fuels. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Carbon capture must be used only for removing historical emissions or supporting high-carbon industries with no good alternative at the present time. | |
| Jon,Randall | Town of Webster, NY | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. Strengthen the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law: 1) set a target of 100% diversion by 2030 2) set timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Note: expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. Expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to phase out single-use products over a 2-year timeframe. Recycling must be supported: 1) requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging 2) expansion of container deposit programs 3) The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products I further support: 1) a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, 2) expansion of extended producer requirements, and 3) expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be limited to on-site generation only. | |
| Mark,Marsack | Do not pass this, it is unsustainable at this time. We must let this process evolve more slowly. The committee that came up with this plan is obviously blinded by feel-good mentality leading them to thinking this can change soo quickly. | ||
| Marcia,Goodrich | I have no issues with trying to protect our environment; however, the CAC plan just looks good on the surface. The nitty gritty details are not acknowledged. I have a problem with the CAC trying to link upstate burning of a renewable resource to heat our homes to downstate hospital visits and asthma. There are more trees now than a hundred years ago. Using a renewable resource to heat our homes should be encouraged - instead of depending on oil or electricity. Eliminating the use of burning wood would be detrimental to upstaters. These citizens burn wood to cut down on expenses. Now you want them to pay extra for electricity and oil as well as the cost to convert to a new heating system. A lot of emphasis in the CAC plan was focused on converting vehicles and buildings to electric. There was mention of producing green building materials. However, there was no mention of the amount of products inside our homes that contain petroleum (pretty much everything we own - makeup, upholstery, dishes, tires, vehicle plastic), and we cannot forget our roadways. Putting a battery in a car and forcing people to heat with electricity might sound good to the environmentalists, but it’s not even coming close to making NY green. Instead it’s putting financial hardships on its hardworking citizens. Driving a battery operated car sounds good, but the entire vehicle contains petroleum products. I encourage the use of environmentally friendly farming practices; however taxing farmers on fertilizer use and converting equipment to electric is not feasible to these already struggling food producing citizens. I’m afraid this plan will just drive more businesses out of NY, while still producing the products elsewhere - resulting in the same environmental impacts. We saw this with tanneries, coal, etc. Lastly, I kept reading about the added assistance from DEC in this plan. DEC is already under budgeted and understaffed. Added responsibilities from them is just not possible. | ||
| Karen,Wager | They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries. The simple truth is that we can't. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet. To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren't being talked about. All sources of energy have limits that can't be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun's photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%. So, we're pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren't any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we're told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do. Consider the world's biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day's worth of America's electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world's energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies. Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they're built from nonrenewable materials. Consider some sobering numbers: A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet. Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes | ||
| Lisa,Pierce | I believe forcing people to transition to all electric households is horrible! People don’t have the money for that. Also, in WNY having only electric for heat won’t work! When power goes out people will be without heat, hot water and a cooking appliance. Cutting emissions is a good idea , however, going to solely electric is a bad idea. | ||
| Jack,Hampton | I have a Wilson, NY, Sunset Island Cottage on Lake Ontario. It is a summer cottage with a fireplace. We have occasional fires in the late summer/early fall and late spring. It takes the chill out of the air. Primarily, many is not most of the summer cottage residents use fires in the same way. And or charcoal or gas grills to cook out. In fact it is widespread throughout the state and indeed the nation. Restricting cookouts and marsh-mellow roasting fires in a huge government overreach and just plain un-American. Electric heat is terribly expensive. I wonder how much carbon will be put in the air to provide the massive increase in electric needs the huge burden such a change will introduce. | ||
| William,Eccleston | New York state is going to burden it's residents further with the unnecessary mandates on renewable energy. Most of the recommendations made by the Climate Action Council will drive energy prices up further. New York will effectively cut off dependable energy sources that New Yorker's rely on to heat their homes during the harsh winter months. New York needs to implement energy policies that will keep its residents here and that will attract others to migrate to New York. These policies will do the opposite. | ||
| Christopher ,Zelasko | You can’t force people to transition to a complete electric home. The majority of homes are not set up for no natural gas. I for one do not want my taxes going to upgrade homes to have 200 amps and the wiring related to the upgrade. You have to keep natural gas as a form of energy in NYS. | ||
| Stephanie ,Zahn | ** leave the NATURAL GAS Alone !!!!! DO NOT REMOVE NATURAL GAS FROM NEW YORK STATE !!!!!! | ||
| Barbara,Rainville | About reducing or eliminating use of wood burning stoves for heating..please consider that wirh the high cost of fuels like propane/natural gas or electricity, this would create a hardship for many families who currently use wood for heat. As a retired person on a fixed income this would be unacceptable. | ||
| Jean,Black | Jean A Black, CPA | You can't possibly expect taxpayers to read this plan, so given that your goal isn't believable, it's difficult to place much credence in anything you present. Also, when I noticed that Al Gore is on the advisory panel, I can only surmise that this launch is gravely exaggerated. It would seem to me that radioactive waste from nuclear reactors would be far more harmful than carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels. Of course, I object to the Climate Act for many reasons, but mainly because the US national debt is thirty-three trillion dollars, and your renewable electric plan will be 100% in place in less than 20 years. The democrats are trying to destroy the United States, but I think the republicans can stop them. | |
| David,Campbell | This climate action plan is long overdue. I fully support New York State reducing its carbon emissions as soon as possible. Thank you | ||
| Diane,Larsen | VOTER!!!! | I am against the REMOVAL of ALL NATURAL GAS usage now and in the future. I am against the REMOVAL of ALL NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES and anything related to gas. You, Kathy Hochul and your circle are taking AWAY my rights to use natural gas. I do not want to give up my right to use Natural Gas in any way. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE SENT OUT TO NYS PEOPLE!!! Kathy Hochul: why don't you go on TV and hold a news conference and tell NYS people this. There are LOTS of people who do not have access to this information. | |
| Lori,Jarvis | Adjustable Altitudes Adirondack Guid e Service | The time is NOW for NY to lead our country & the world in stopping the game of "kick the climate can down the road." Humans lived a long time before we industrialized via dinosaur juice. Change is hard, but we are heartier! Some day it will be a sad chapter in the history books about how we let the abuse of our planet go on for so long and our grandchildren's grandchildren will wonder what was so hard about the transition when the goal was so important. I am willing to bear that burden now so they can have lives free from concerns about the dangers of fossil fuel destroying our existence. We're not saving the planet...we're saving ourselves. Please, pass this legislation. | |
| Marc,Cesare | See attached file | has attachment | |
| Carole,Camp | retired | You have a great plan, but to ensure it's success it needs :economy wide carbon pricing, which is understood to be the surest way to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Including the important cash back program will protect low income, middle income and seniors on SS. The IPCC in it's latest report emphasized this as a jump starter to climate innovation and new energy sources.. When we don't feel the pinch, we don't act, which is where we are now. | |
| lawrence,marciano | nys seems to do whatever they want just like california.Ifeel i have no representation in this state no matter how stupid the plans are.It takes time to advance these objectives and money...which we could use to help fund many other projects.How much money is nys going to keep taking from us only to make the rich richer.We need both fossil and other energy solutions to work together.Im not a fan of destroying our scenic land sites with solar fields and wind farms.These plans will be very problematic and will leave ny in the dark.How much more money will the energy dept. keep taking and taxing.The time is not now to have even more new yorkers leaving the state.Gee i wonder why | ||
| Lawrence,Kissko | This plan will do more harm than good. | ||
| Jasmin,Rivera | Greetings. The intent to improve the climate while addressing environmental justice is a noble one. What is being done to ensure that the measures implemented do not displace those live in disadvantaged communities. If justice is a key component then ensuring that those who live in the disadvantaged communities can continue to live and thrive in those communities for a generation or longer is needed. Otherwise the improvements will be the first phase of gentrification and displacement. | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | ||
| Thomas,Gillott | Seems like the Democrats are really pushing something that has a low immediate impact on us again , Making life harder for the working class people and making it harder to achieve an affordable lifestyle , why don’t we just all go back to the Stone Age and start over , And call it the New Green Deal ! Seems to me as though you are wanting to make these changes for us here in America but the rest of the world is giving it no attention and will never follow any of the recommendations made as every other Deal made . It all sounds like something that would be Good in a perfect world but we are not living in a perfect world , for you Rich people it may seem easy to accomplish because your not the ones on the bottom of the food chain , all you do is push the buttons and make the the unrealistic decision for us , and we “ the little people” have to live with your misjudgment's . We have come a long way in my lifetime and will continue to evolve as humans. Let’s try holding people accountable and the things they have brought to action that had not worked out ! And just tell the truth ! | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | |
| Francis W.,Pratt | r.e.: pg. 9 of the "Draft Scoping Plan Overview" Curious to understand the "phasing out of heating oil" and how in hell geothermal heat is supposed to replace that source here in the cold, to very cold, climates. Where I live has no access to natural gas and because of the ban on fracking I don't see us EVER having access to that source of energy. Guess it might be time to reinstall our woodstove and go back to burning trees for heat. This plan is inane. | ||
| Tony,Fowler | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Lorraine,Torgesen | It has been well documented in my opinion that prematurely transitioning from a fossil fuel economy to a "green" economy will threaten America by excacerbating shortages and threaten our national security. At a time when our government has opened its door to the world, it has pursued a lockdown of our energy resources and increased its bid for the government to dictate what is best for America. America is at its best when innovators are allowed to make the progress that consumers demand. Purest air and cleanest water can be achieved but not by killing everyone by starvation and globalist policies. Our educators need to be held accountable for teaching false assumptions and predictions and provide a more balanced world view. Clean coal, natural gas and efficient oil production should be part of an all of the above energy strategy in New York and across the country. Liberty and justice for ALL. Thank you. | ||
| James,Domagala | I would like to know where people are going to get the money to buy all new electric appliances and cars. Most people will also need to have their homes rewired You don't just plug in a hotwater heater or electric stove into a regular 120 volt outlet. We are already told in hot weather to conserve electric because of all the air conditioners running whats going to happen when you add thousands of cars on charge and millions of new electric appliances. I can see blackouts in our future just like what happened in Texas. I think you need to push back your plans years so the electrical grid can be beefed up to handle the increased usage and give people time to afford replacing their equipment. | ||
| Deborah and,Kornfeld | RAICA | I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. Mrs | |
| Edward,Donoghue | This plan will economically devastate NY residents driving us to leave the state. | ||
| April,Bingel | Many of the proposals in this plan will only lead to higher costs for NYS residents. Our state is already one of the most expensive to reside in, this will not be attractive to residents or businesses and lead to more families leaving this state. Specifically the following: no new gas service to existing buildings, no natural gas for new construction, no new gas appliances, and no gas auto sales by 2035. Please start using common sense in your efforts to control climate change. NYS always seems to be behind the curve in balanced proposals. | ||
| Jeff,Duxbury | The draconian energy policies put forth by this program are a detriment to New Yorkers, especially those in rural areas. There is no reliability in the technology, grid infrastructure is terribly lacking, and we have dependable and economical energy sources available in fossil fuels. By forcing this on the residents of New York, the burden on us will be unsurmountable. I am against going forward with this program. | ||
| ROBERT,ST YVES | none | In short, there are objections to the entire proposal- it is yet another exercise in government overreach. The impact on climate change is questionable at best. Based on records to date there will be negligible impact on climate. Many of the proposed actions and objectives are unattainable logistically or financially while being unaffordable without serious negative impacts on both public and private funding sources. Once again we see government attempting to impose nonsensical regulation and mandates on it's citizens without taking the time to logically follow through with potential consequences resulting from half baked ideas. | |
| Christine,Steerman | CCL, En-ROADS volunteer | I wrote about 500 words regarding my support of Carbon Price. It would not fully load in this space and so I am uploading the file in PDF Christine Steerman PhD | has attachment |
| Samana,Lake | I commend our state in creating this extensive and comprehensive document outlining so many key areas of need in achieving our climate goals over the next 50 years . This can help our state to take the lead in taking effective actions to mitigate climate change and support the transition to alternative sources of energy. In relation to Chapter 17 regarding Economy Wide Strategies, I am in favor of the Carbon Pricing Option and the benefits for our climate and our economy. Scientists, businesses and most people support a price on Carbon and it will work to minimize Carbon Emissions to achieve our state wide emissions goals. It will quickly transform our electricity sector to net zero emissions, and then electrify our buildings and our transportation sector. Our industrial sector will transition to net zero via a mix of efficiency, electrification, carbon capture, and other carbon emission reductions technology. Studies have shown that a steadily rising price, starting at $15/ton and rising by $10/ton per year, would cut fossil fuel pollution by 30% in the first 5 years alone. This will put America on a path to hit the targets set by the Paris accords and to reach net zero by 2050. New York can be a forerunner in this. People may use a carbon fee to describe a policy that does not grow the size of government. When the money raised is given to people as in a Carbon Fee and Dividend program, people are given the means to transition to greener sources of energy. Regardless of what opponents of carbon pricing might say, all of the evidence shows that a carbon fee that sends carbon cash back payments to households will actually improve the economy and create jobs. Continued in uploaded file. | ||
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I have four adorable nieces and nephews and it breaks my heart to think of the mess we are leaving for them. Dealing with climate change is our responsibility, so we can leave a livable world for them. I want to thank all of you at the Climate Action Council and all the staff and related agencies who are taking that responsibility seriously by writing up this crucial Draft Scoping Plan. It gives me hope that it’s not too late to do all we can for the generations to come. History will look favorably on New York State’s CLCPA of 2019. And now, I have a few comments to make. As an upstate resident, I have been advocating for a price on carbon for years. As a member of the Rochester Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby I have been studying the reasons a carbon fee makes sense. Many economists and scientists have stated that a carbon fee will help us quickly reduce greenhouse gases. An economy-wide fee will help fill the gaps that the other climate programs may not cover. An important part of a carbon fee is the “carbon cash-back” or dividend, which would send the proceeds to low and middle class households to help offset the higher energy bills. Another way to avoid sticker shock is to apply a gradual, yearly increase in the carbon fee, with a visible timeline so businesses and households can plan for the future. This will also inspire innovation as businesses will seek ways to bring down their spending on energy. Starting with a low carbon fee would lessen public resistance while gas prices are so high. I also believe that a well-written explanation of a carbon fee and dividend will persuade those who are uncomfortable with new regulations and the growth of government. This plan is revenue-neutral because the money is given back to the residents. It requires fewer regulations, because a fee on carbon is a market-based solution and it’s economy-wide. Thank you for your time reading this. I am inspired by your Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Velma,Button | I am sure that everyone is concerned about climate change but there needs to be some common sense applied to the logistics. My husband and I are on a fixed income and getting to the point we cannot afford to live in New York state. Between the cost of gas, fuel to heat our home, groceries, and taxes instead of retirement we will need to go back to work. Government needs to remember who put them in office and what is the best for the citizens of this country not who puts more money in their pockets. | ||
| Jessica,Boscarino | I’d like to express my appreciation for the clear amount of thought, consideration, deep analysis and innovative thinking that went into formulating this impressive draft scoping plan. Climate change is a top priority for me. As a college professor, I encounter young adults every day that recognize the scope of the climate crisis and are desperate for a reason to be optimistic about their futures. They are facing a lifetime of extreme weather, economic instability and environmental injustice. My job is to show them that there is a productive path forward, and the CLCPA provides a roadmap for such a path at the state level. Given the scope of the problem, I would urge the CAC to adopt a carbon price as an economy-wide strategy. A carbon price that starts at a modest level, allows the different industry sectors to adjust, and then gets progressively more ambitious is the most effective way to enact meaningful and comprehensive change. A carbon price has the advantage of being clear and predictable. With a graduated schedule of price increases, business and individuals can plan and transition to cleaner alternatives. Furthermore, a comprehensive solution like a carbon price is far preferable to dozens (or hundreds) of smaller, more targeted initiatives. Even enacting all of the sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not allow the state to achieve its full CLCPA goals. The inclusion of an economy-wide strategy like carbon pricing is therefore absolutely crucial. I tell my students that crises present both danger and opportunity. This is our crisis moment, and with it comes a chance to think big. Thank you. | ||
| Suzanne,Beaumont | retired | If the current plan goes into effect we can clearly say that we are proud to be New Yorkers. This plan acknowledges that a transition to a green economy is a major step but well worth any difficulties in the short term to enable the possibility of a just healthy economy and planet in the future. We must stand behind this document making necessary changes as technology advances. We can not wait for a painless solution. To protect all of us and affirm what we know in our hearts is right , we must proceed. This is a wonderful blueprint for the process. | |
| Arianna,Valentini | First, I would like to express my gratitude to the working groups, advisory panels, and all agency staff who contributed to the development of the CAC. Living in the Hudson Valley I am directly experiencing the effects of climate change - including damage to my home in an extreme storm in 2018 and losing my job in 2012 due to Hurricane Sandy. I am extremely concerned about the future impacts of more extreme weather that may impact my home, loved ones, and the NYS economy. Additionally, I want to see New York do more economically to push for solutions to improve this problem. For these reasons, I believe that the inclusion of economy-wide strategies is a critical part of this plan and economy-wide carbon pricing is a way to meet the goals set out by the CAC. I see a carbon fee and dividend program as a key framework. Ideally, as a NYS resident, I would like to see that a fee or tax is imposed on the source of any fossil fuel, with revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. Carbon fee and dividend programs implemented in places such as British Columbia show reduced use of fossil fuels, increased innovation, and improvements to its economy. Finally, without a carbon fee and dividend, electricity costs will be and are higher relative to fossil energy costs. A carbon fee and dividend ensure the adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles) are not slowed. | ||
| DANIEL,ACHSTATTER | Citizens Climate Lobby | As a person who lives in a coastal community the climate is a huge issue for me. I've been introduced to the "Carbon fee and dividend" and "Carbon cashback" as a way to charge based on the emissions you're producing while helping out low income people and/or people that reduce their own emissions. It is also a great market based solution to deal with emissions rather than top down regulations. I think a good strategy is to start at lower emissions targets and increase longer term as it sends a good signal to national policy makers while still minimizing short term political risk. Thank you for all the work that you're doing! | |
| Julie ,Galt | Gas is beneficial for our daily life. Not using gas is a misguided and unrealistic goal. New York is known for its cold winters. With those cold winters are windy days when electricity is constantly knocked out. It is detrimental that we have the ability to run gas generators and have natural gas generators available for homes. Not having access to this is ludicrous and life-threatening. Not only that but without these generators when the electricity goes out to homes will also cause flooding in basements and damage. Gas appliances also are the only appliance that will work when there’s a power outage.The reality is is that we need fossil fuels. It does not matter if you do not like them we need them to survive. | ||
| Jerry,Rivers | North American Climate, Conservatio n and Environment(NACCE) | My is Jerry Rivers, senior environmental scientist for North American Climate, Conservation and Environment, from Roosevelt, NY.. Long Island is on the frontline of climate change. Our coastal communities are threated by sea-level rise causing flooding and home damage; families are still recovering from the devastation of superstorm sandy; and our neighborhoods are overburdened with air pollution from fossil fuels, causing cancers, asthma, and heart disease. We need to meet the goals of CLCPA in the most rapid equitable way possible for the heath and safety our island. New York must establish a dedicated funding mechanism to ensure reductions of both greenhouse gas and co pollutant emissions and to begin the state's large scale transition to an equitable renewable energy economy. An equitable economy wide pollution fee is likely the best approach to generate the necessary in a just manner. We know from our experience on Long Island with grumman plume , illegal dumping in our parks, and the dozens of superfund sites that polluters themselves should foot the bill for the damage they have done.. To achieve the goals set out in the CLCPA, at least 211,000 new jobs are expected to be added by 2030 in transportation, buildings, fuels and electricity sectors. This represents a net increase of 189,000 jobs by 2030. By 2050, this number(net) will jump to 268,000. Long Island is projected to see around 33,600 of these net jobs. All these jobs must include strong labor standards including prevailing wage, benefits, and local hiring provisions, funding for workforce development, more.. We should establish a Worker and Community Assurance Fund to provide direct age replacement and pension support to fossil fuel dependent workers as well as support to communities who rely on fossil fuel dependent industries. We need to ensure communities that host major power plants like Yaphank, Port Jefferson, Oceanside, Brentwood, Glenwood, Hempstead, Babylon, and Northport are made whole. | |
| Barbara ,Lange | No one will be able to afford heat on electric in this climate. Your plans only increase taxpayers cost of living and wages do not increase fast enough. Our family’s standard of living has gone down tremendously in 10 years. We are college educated professionals who earn less than some uneducated state workers. Now your plan increases costs again! No wonder people leave for Republican run states (and I’m a Democrat) | ||
| George,Miller | Although the CAC plan sounds good in general - I believe the plan is far to aggressive for society at this time. Being in the northern part of NY (Clinton County) - we have limited Gas supply and I do not have access to it at this time and now you want to remove that for us where heating is of great concern. As for our reliance on Gas for automobiles - being in rural northern NY - we have limited access to charging stations and I am not convinced that battery powered cars will work all that well in my colder climate. I think this is a start, but I am not so sure this time-line will work. | ||
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | |
| Greg,Lange | This is a plan for disaster. This will only cause bigger economic issues for our residents. This needs to repealed and stopped. Electricity will become so expensive that people will freeze or not be able to charge their cars. Strike this down and let’s become leaders in technology to reduce green house gasses and have alternatives instead of breaking our economy and residents bank accounts. VOTE IT DOWN | ||
| Lou Anne,DaRin | Resident | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | |
| James,Schmidt | I am vehemently opposed. Sen. Ortt mailed info on this plan, and I downloaded both the entirely unhelpful overview and the full text. Living where I do, I concentrated on wood and agriculture in reviewing the text. I saw a lot of information about wood smoke, but nothing about whether you plan to stop people using wood for heat or cooking. It isn't an outlandish concern. I lived briefly in CA, and a person couldn't buy a charcoal grill nor a bag of charcoal 40 yrs ago. I also saw a lot of information on livestock and manure methane emissions. Do you plan to gut the dairy industry? What about ATVs used in agriculture? The large cities can draw on multiple sources for electricity. Even though I am only miles from a hydroelectric facility, I have experienced power outages lasting up to 6 days. Including in warm weather months. So you want to outlaw replacing gas furnaces which can be run by a small generator. No gas stoves to simmer large pots of water. More expensive to operate electric only water heaters. With the Biden tax on NG, my electric bill for about 340kW jumped almost a third. NO you don't get to outlaw NG. Including new construction, and no new service to existing homes. Are you telling me that if I don't sell my home soon a new owner couldn't start NG service, or if my service needs future repair I will be forbade? What are your plans for the Tuscarora and other Reserves? My Lady and her relatives use LP gas, and the electric infrastructure is even less reliable. As to no gasoline autos, I compared prices on 2022 Ford F150. Gas burner $30k. Lightning with standard batteries $53k. You think the average upstate citizen can afford the difference? A Tesla home charging station is $700. How much higher would my electric consumption be charging a car? I have read that when such an EV's batteries eventually fail, they are so expensive to replace one may as well replace the vehicle. What about disabled people? I can't walk to the grocery store 3/4 mile. NO!!! | ||
| Marvin,Lutz | Natural gas is not the enemy. Please stop demonizing it. We should be targeting diesel and fuel oil. They both are dirty and produce far more filthy particulates. We should be expanding natural gas lines ensuring 100% of NY can heat their homes with this safe and environmental preferences fuel. I live on a main road and have to run inside when big diesel trucks drive by as the toxic smell in nauseous. I’ve been around homes that burn natural gas and never had the same experience. | ||
| Mary,Tremblay | We live where the temperature dips to 20 degrees below zero. An installer of heat pump systems assured me that they cannot keep your house warm at that temperature. You must allow for additional source of heat or make everyone leave the north country. Bio-mass has been big polluter in the past. If it produces methane it is no good. | ||
| James,Hanley | Empire Center for Public Policy | ||
| John,Keevert | The major goal for the industry sector should be reduced emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. More data is vital so there must be strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Concentrate first on polluters in DAC’s. State purchasing power can incentivize purchase of green products. Also useful are mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products when there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. To make green industrial products available for state and private economic activities, provide in-state economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs should prioritize residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, then previous fossil fuel workers. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, should never justify continued pollution. Rare use of such technologies is allowed only for vital processes most difficult to clean up. Energy production must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, since green alternatives exist. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State. It is wildly energy intensive and serves no social purpose. | ||
| John,Keevert | It is clear that to achieve the CLCPA goals we must have waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. Also capture of GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. The Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law is an important part of this and should be enhanced by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 along with elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Please expand funding for programs connecting generators of excess edible food with local food banks. Diversion of organic material from landfills and incinerators is vital; to do this we need expanded local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure. The successful models of organics collection programs should be expanded. I believe a per-ton surcharge on all waste will encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling. This should be coupled with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. I distrust voluntary programs so ask for legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and also to require single-use products be “by request only”. Further legislation should require minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging as well as expansion of container deposit programs. State purchasing power can drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. Longer term, we should push textile waste reduction and recycling programs, expand extended producer requirements, and legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Temporary electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities can use the methane, but shouldn’t further harm disadvantaged communities. It should be strictly limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. Such biogas should never be an excuse to expand or extend use of natural gas infrastructure. | ||
| Geraldine,Minerd | Resident of New York | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. I urge you to enact regulations instead of recommendations!! Thank You in advance! | |
| Nigel,Mulvena | A complete detachment of the realities that face real New Yorkers. Irresponsible, and only adds to the massive bureaucracy that is New York. You need to let the public decide on the participation in these ideologies. Look around your office. Is New York State government practicing what they preach? Paper waste, electrical rape, extreme gas and energyy usage. Completely out of control. | ||
| Randy,Mccane | I do not support the “climate bill” nor do I want any of my elected officials to vote for it. After researching the plans government desires to put in place (and unfortunately after purchasing a hybrid vehicle myself) I have found that a move away from fossil fuels would cause more harm to our world than it helps. The mining for the elements that go into more technology and batteries pushes the Harvey scale too fat to the detriment side. And the hatful economic effects would be detrimental to countless industries and households. There are a myriad of other reasons why this is not beneficial for New Yorkers or the American people as a whole, but all it takes is an open mind and some very quick research to know you should vote no. | ||
| Paul,Trackey | My wife and I are completely against this to the point we will no longer vote for any democratic candidate again. if they implement these this will be an absolute disaster for the northeast region. People are going to get hurt by these policies. Any democrat or republican who supports this should be removed from office immediately. I drive a tractor trailer for a living higher fuel prices leads to higher prices for everyone. a new diesel powered truck $ 160 to$ 200. from what I've read the infostructures for electric trucks isn't there yet. The range on diesel truck of mine now is 1800 to 1900 miles before needing fuel. electric tractor 600 miles. then recharge needed. keep it up you think there id a driver shortage now most of the drivers i talk to say they retire or find some other kind of work. natural gas is a must living in this climate that can reach -30 at times in the winter. what are you people thinking? | ||
| John,Gebhards | resident of NY | g throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | |
| JEREMY,GRACE | Resident of Penfield, NY | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | |
| Clarence ,Trudeau | There are so many variables in this plan that is improbable that any of these goals can be reached. Weather (ice storm of 1998), economic impact between cities and rural areas, economic impact between industrial and agricultural areas, putting all your resources into one form of energy is dangerous because of unknown problems that can arise (diversity in energy is safer), and finally the cost of this plan will be detrimental to the state’s economic welfare. Who will benefit from this plan. The rich will not give up their planes, yachts, and limousines. The rest of us will have to go back to living like the Amish (horse and buggy). You should have taken the money that was spent for this program and reduced the taxes for the people in this state that work for a living. | ||
| Brady,Fergusson | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, industries polluting behind the meter, such as proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining centers, must be carefully regulated. | ||
| Jeremy,Grace | Resident of Penfield, NY | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | |
| Brady,Fergusson | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | ||
| James,McCulley | 24 chapters and the use of just 2000 characters says it all. It is sad the people that claim to believe and follow science do not follow the science. How many of you know about the Egyptian Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, The Meadevil Warm Period all of these periods the earth was warmer than it is today. I am betting not one person pushing the idea of climate change in NY knows that the 1960s were the coldest decade of the 20th century. The ignorance on the general subject is disheartening to anyone with a mind. Before proposing solutions that will destroy the working class which is truly the goal of the climate elitist and politicians that support these plans there are things you should know. To produce a 1000# battery 500,000#'s of materials have to be processed all done with fossil fuels. To produce a battery that has the energy of one barrel of oil you need 100 barrels of oil. Wind and solar energy actually increase the carbon footprint of energy production and kill millions of birds and bats. Even if the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and power is being generated there is a fossil fuel plant burning fuel at full steam to make sure if the wind stops or a cloud goes over the electricity grid stays up. Man is responsible for just 3% of CO2 emissions which means just 12 molecules per 1 million molecules of air. These are mixed together and cannot possibly trap heat. Stop the silliness and the increasing energy cost on the working poor. | ||
| leonard,hotham | retired | I strongly support of expanding direct-to-consumer sales of zero-emission vehicles. I hate dealing with auto dealerships to negotiate final costs. It's ridiculous. It will slow down electric car sales. Also as an owner of a tesla, I would like more service centers. | |
| Calvin,Castine | self | Go back to the drawing board. Too much, too soon. The North Country cannot afford your proposals. NO to the following: No new natural gas service to existing buildings, starting in 2024. No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, starting in 2024. No new natural gas appliances for homes, starting in 2030 No gas-powered automobile sales by 2035. | |
| Lori,Osgoo | NY should be developing dependable and environmentally responsible sources of power before eliminating gas appliances and cars. The ban will just push sales outside of New York! Where is the plan for safe nuclear power? What about investing in more efficient hybrid vehicle technology? Don’t burden New Yorkers with costly and shortsighted mandates! Planned transitioning is smarter than cold turkey mandates. | ||
| Erik,Morton | I am deeply concerned about the actions being considered by the Climate Action Council in NYS. Many of the proposed policies are motivated by a political agenda and is being forced upon the state under the guise of science. While science has shown that human activity is likely changing our climate, the existential “climate crisis” is a political narrative that I do not subscribe to. I am deeply concerned that the Climate Action Council is pushing policies that will have deeply negative affects for the people of New York, and especially for Upstate residents. Fossil fuels helped to create the American middle class. Fossil fuels allow Upstate residents to cost effectively drive the many miles to earn a living and they help to heat our homes. Fossil-fuel-based fertilizers have drastically increased crop yields and massively reduced the cost to feed a family. Limiting the availability of fossil fuels in the name of a politically-motivated “crisis” will drastically increase costs for most families. Climate activists and politicians talk about an “existential crisis” decades down the road, but many residents of Upstate face an existential crisis every day. Rising energy prices force serious economic trade-offs. Ignoring America’s (and New York State’s) own natural resources increases costs to consumers, raises the cost of doing business, and limits economic growth. With the livelihoods of so many people at stake, the climate crisis debate has become secular dogma advanced for political purposes by the elite of American society at the expense of the majority. Perhaps most concerning is the selective use of science to advance this agenda. Two questions come to mind. Why are we minimizing the use of nuclear energy when it is reliable, cost-effective and low-carbon energy source? Why are we pushing the use of electric vehicles when their batteries require massive investments in environmentally unfriendly mining? The CAC is sadly driven more by politics than science. | ||
| Roger,Harrower | The move to remove fossil fuels as sources of power seems to be a poorly thoughtout move. I agree that electric is cleaner at the point of usage. There are several questions that need addressing 1. From where will the electrical energy come? Will it be wind, water, or sun? Wind and sun are not effecient and seems to trip the environmentalist ire due to the intrusion on the land and air. Also, the capturing of the energy from the wind and sun means that energy will not reach the ground to warm the ground for growing and will affect the wind currents and storms. 2.How will the energy be distributed?The change to all electric will require an additional distribution systems. Has there been calculations as to the stress on the exisitng systems? If additional systems are required will they be above ground or be required to be underground to protect the aesthetic aspects of the environment? Also how will the homeowners pay for the upgrades to their electrical systems to support the all-electric culture. 3. When they panels, motors, controls, and appurtenances reach their life to where will the waste material be disposed? We have some missionary friends in Papua New Guina and they are just now replacing their solar panels after 25 years. 4. Also, where will the materials for new panels and batteries be acquired? It would seem a delay in the elmentation of this all-electric culture would be necessary so the technology to meet these requirements is developed. We are not on the edge of having an energy depletion if we can use what we have in the continental USA. Please look at all the aspects before making these changes. If this system was economical it would not take a governmental program to make it happen. Thank you for reading this and hopefully considering how this will happen. If federal government funds are required, please remember the Federal government is already several trillions dollars in debt. Printing more money increaes the cost of the projects | ||
| Katrina,Ruhlman | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| William,Schettine | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Greg,Guidry | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Jason,Hunt | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Mark,Lewis | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Randy,Hayes | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Ashley,Tieken | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| James,Grenfell | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| William,Schettine | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Joel,Wilson | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Austin,Fox | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. We have got to do a better job of educating these people about what they are doing to the people that live in these states and cities. Please consider the consequences the people will have to face as a result of this careless policy. | ||
| Jeff,Wilkins | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Tom,Newton | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Outlawing natural gas installations is counter-productive. Natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy available to us today and there is an existing infrastructure available to provide it to "retail" consumers. By encouraging an all-electric economy (ok, legally requiring it), the legislature is looking very short-sighted, so short that they are not even looking to how the electricity will be provided. In fact, the energy generated in New York by natural gas is much greater than any other source ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_York). To replace even one natural gas plant would require at least five of the biggest wind plants available in New York now. The point is that natural gas is abundant, clean and the state of New York relies heavily on it. Isn't it a bit ironic that the electricity being used to replace the natural gas in new installations will most likely be generated by natural gas? The gas would be burned in some distant place where it can be converted to electricity and transported (inefficiently and at a higher cost) rather than utilizing it right whe | ||
| Kevin,LaBauve | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Gregory,Steele | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Louis,Saki | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Richard,Renfro | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Tracy,Buck | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. The natural Gas ban is hurting the people that live and pay taxes in NYS. Please consider ending this ban immediately. | ||
| Morgan,Colbey | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Joseph,Cimbak | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. Wow. Ban natural gas? Really. Honest this is a joke right? I have a home in East Aurora, NY. It has natural gas service. We Cook with gas. Gas is used to for heating the home space. Gas is used for heating water. Natural gas is cheaper than alternatives. What do you propose we replace natural gas with? Hydrogen? I'm all for it...but you need natural gas to make hydrogen. So...what's next? Wind and solar? How on earth will either of those be effective for Grid Planning? Just can't happen. How about Nuclear? Oh wait, we can't build more nukes. Coal? Nope, coal produces 50% more CO2 than natural gas on a good day with anthracite coal. We are running out of options here. Let's see...let's help NY State. Just to our south and west is the Marcellus and Utica Shales. Just a couple hundred miles of pipeline transportation fees and we can feed NY State with cheap and abundant natural gas. I have an idea! Let's BAN completely all FOREIGN sources of natural gas. No more LNG freighters allowed in Boston Harbor or NY Harbor or Baltimore Harbor. All freighters inbound are foreign because of the stupidity of the Jones Act. Repeal the Jones Act....let New Orleans natural gas go by whatever freighter exists to carry it to the north while we build the Marcellus and Utica shale pipelines needed to enrich New England with natu | ||
| Mike,Thornberg | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Heather,Schettine | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Mike,Layh | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. Natural gas will help move us to a clean energy world. We need natural gas until in some distant future we will have enough green energy, including natural gas, to nearly eliminate emissions into the atmosphere. Please reconsider your stance on natural gas as a clean energy so that millions can heat their homes and cook for their families instead of the expense of electric heat. Natural gas has little if any Government subsidies to produce compared to other green energy at this time. | ||
| Ricky,Dyess | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Arguments in support of Natural Gas (NG) include: 1) Low Carbon Future - NG Replaces high carbon coal and fuel oils results in lower carbon emissions to produce an equal amount of energy. 2) NG Supports manufacturing of components used in developing Wind and Solar farms. 3) Affordability - NG is less expensive than other fossil fuels 4) Reliability - NG supply is not weather dependent, vary few other disruptions, abundance of reserves in US, not dependent on radical foreign governments. | ||
| Chris,Jones | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Kert,May | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Chris,Argue | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Robert,Fanning | You can’t eliminate all fossil fuels. Solar power and geothermal heal should be incentivized for household use. Electronic cars for short distances. Gasoline will still be used for transportation, aviation and trucking, not to mention national defense. Natural gas can not be eliminated. This should be done via tax incentives , NOT MANDATES! | ||
| Douglas ,Reynolds | I do not agree with the plan to stop expansion of national gas services with out a replacement , affordable plan in place that won’t cause worse affects, leaving people cold and in the dark! Fact is the electric grid is already stretched to the limit, and the wind mills and solar farms are not the answer. That is just another money grab. A good start would reconsider all the large, Unnecessary constructions going on now. For example, car wash on Niagara Falls blvd. in North Tonawanda, do we really need that? How much energy was used to deliver materials, construct, and run that monstrosity? Same with planed Costco in Amherst. Look around, it’s going on everywhere. Don’t impose steps on us, start with the big gas users! I hear with wood pellets, with a propane back up furnace, so I personally know what a job it is to heat without natural gas. Propane is 2.899 per gallon now! Please get a solution before you take 5 steps backwards!! Thank you , Doug | ||
| Michael,Murray | The entire climate control council actions are reflective of a socialist/communist style of government control. Each step leads to higher cost of living, loss of choosing how to live, job losses, increase all basic services to those who live and build homes in this state, who should supply goods and services to the public in New York State. This is simply forcing people to obey someone in government without any real control over their point of view or whether all available information is given to the public. There are volumes of information about all of what is called climate change that is suppressed from public knowledge. Whenever any issue about climate conditions is discussed, the media does not allow every voice to be heard. No valid case has been made to prove the current conjecture about climate variation and that the current socialist/communist plan will in any way become a long-term way to solve the many so-called issues addressed in the media. To simply say danger lies ahead does not mean there really is a danger as printed and that every idea was considered before the information was printed. Michael Murray | ||
| Jerremy,Morin | I think that the plan is very aggressive, in the deadlines I think that the new heating systems that are 95% efficient or better should be able to be implemented and extend the cut offs to give the power companies more time to upgrade the power grids…. Especially in areas that are hit by storms. Most peoples generators are not able to power these systems. The cost to the home owners are very high in comparison to efficiency. 100% versus 95% or better | ||
| James,Madsen | I recall the bumper sticker: No Farms, No Food. Well, if this plan is passed the new bumper sticker will be: No Energy, No Jobs. We need affordable energy to retain, grow and attract businesses. This plan will make NYS even more unaffordable than it already is. And even if you had a plan to still provide fossil fuels to the businesses that require it electrification in the residential market will send costs skyrocketing that people will be compelled to relocate. We need to tap the brakes on climate change hysteria. Humans will adapt and new technologies will come along to replace fossil fuels in time. Temperatures rising a few degrees is not the unmitigated disaster people believe it will be. People living in Miami will not drown if sea levels rise. They will simply move. You see, 99% of the U.S. is not occupied by people. There is plenty of room! We are allowing a handful of pseudo-religious climate fanatics to dictate policy. We need adults, not fanatics setting policy. Please reconsider this plan. | ||
| Pat,Low | None | Are you people nucking futz? We put gas in our house after decades of power outages! We have had with gas, at last, a reasonable assurance that if--and usually when--we could heat up something in our house, because of power outages--. Maybe pasta, maybe soup. Something warm. Because RG&E cannot provide power well. We were out for 5 days during the ice storm; out for 4 days during the wind storm. People here have had it. They are putting in gas generators. I guess you idiots do like not good restaurants, either, because no chef will work with an electric stove. | |
| Linda,Isaacson Fedele | Climate Solutions Accelerator of the G enesee-Finger Lakes Region | Dear Climate Action Council: While there are many, many extremely immediate concerns for everyone right now, climate change remains at the top of my list because it is an injustice accelerator. That is, it exacerbates food insecurity, health issues, inflation and economic disparities, and is a primary driver of immigration / migration. Thanks to research commissioned by the Climate Solutions Accelerator of the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region (a study of existing aggregated data), we know that transportation contributes 35-39% of emissions in our 9-county region, more than the 28% average across the state. So, for us, addressing transportation is essential. About me and my spouse: We own a Tesla and lease a fully electric Chevy Bolt. We love the Tesla charging infrastructure for long trips, and we have a home charger for the majority of days. We’re privileged, clearly; most people need convenience and affordability. So, I’m happy to see that the Scoping Plan includes rebates and tax incentives on new and used (great!) EVs, and charging availability in apartment and parking lots. I also wholeheartedly support reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I understand that we can’t restructure public transportation across the state overnight, but I’d like to see a detailed plan and designated funding to achieve that. I understand that the Scoping Plan does generally recommend improvements to bus routes, transit stops, frequency of service, and affordable fares with easy payment mechanisms. That’s great. But the focus seems to be on New York City, and we need that across the state. I would like to see the transition from gasoline-based buses to EV buses apply across the state, too, not just in NYC. Inter-city t needs to be addressed: Add long distance EV bus service or electric light rail. Thank you for the opportunity to comment! | |
| James,Carmody | I believe that funding our climate actions as an ambitious state is vital to success. Because for us to reduce all our emissions to 15.100 by the year 2050, a permanent funding mechanism is going to be needed. So knowing that, who can be an advocate for the Climate and Community Investment Act? You will achieve our great goals, and enable us to accomplish the same, if you help pass the CCIA. This means one thing: pass it! Are you able to help get the funding for our climate actions? | ||
| William,Ferguson | I am opposed to the Climate Action Council's plan. The proposals in the plan will result in higher energy costs for the average New Yorker and less energy choices, hurting working families because higher energy costs permeate through every aspect of households. Transportation, home heating, groceries, commercial trade, mortgages and rents are all impacted by less available energy and less choices that result in higher costs. More specifically, I vehemently oppose the call for no gasoline automobile sales. What arrogance! Shame on the Central Planners that think they can prescribe the car that I can drive. I oppose the plan's call for no new natural gas appliances. I oppose the plan's call for no natural gas in newly constructed buildings. I oppose no new gas service to existing buildings. In all these items, government should not restrict the private market and personal freedom. Moreover, while the plan calls for turning off all these fossil fuels, including natural gas which many use as heating sources for winter home heating, cooking, clothes drying, fireplaces, what is the replacement? Electricity seems to be the universal chorus - yet, the electric turbines must be spun by a power source, most often coal burning plants. There seems to be very little care to the consequences of these lofty, virtue-signaling climate plans and the expense it shifts to working folks, as well as take freedoms and limit market choices, increasing government's heaviness and burdensome regulation in the economy, which always lead to higher costs. For all these reasons and more, I oppose the CAC plan. | ||
| Wester,Miga | I object to this plan to move forward in it’s current state. It is unrealistic and one sided in it’s approach. It does not make use of the most logical energy source which is consistent- nuclear Thank you | ||
| John,Hogue | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. The USA needs to be more energy independent and not dependent. We don't need to rely on countries that hate Americans and despise our volumes for our energy. | ||
| Casey,Colbey | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Nicholas,Atkin | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Miles,McManus | Here are my comments on the draft scoping plan, by section: 9.2 Eliminate Scenarios 2 and 4, which rely on false solutions like biofuels, RNG, biomass, waste incineration, and hydrogen, all of which should be identified here as contrary to CLCPA goals, either because they cause emissions or slow the adoption of available zero-emissions solutions. Instead, use Scenario 3, “Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion” as the CAC’s recommended plan, BUT update it to adopt 216.27 MT CO2e as the 2030 interim target, to align with the IPCC’s latest report (B.6.3 projects a 43% reduction from 2019 is needed for a 50% chance of staying at 1.5º of warming). 9.3 Declare that negative emissions tech is not part of the planning or projections. If it becomes feasible at some point, let it be a hedge against emissions missed in planning. 17.1 Fund the transition, starting ASAP, with a fee establishing a carbon price that polluters pay and is designed to deliver on the CLCPA’s equity and justice goals. Allocate resources to education and fighting misinformation. 20. Don’t rely on local governments, utilities, or industry to “demonstrate leadership”—ensure state/regional support as noted, but also make sure mandates/timelines are legally and logistically enforceable. 23. Eliminate the 2-year lag in the GHG inventory. No 21st century leader measures progress and makes decisions with old data. 23.1 One overall progress report every 4 years is a recipe for failure. This should be quarterly, or ideally a live dashboard. 24. Updating the scoping plan every 5 years is insufficient. There must be a mechanism to adapt tactics and timeline whenever material new information is learned (IPCC/scientific papers, etc). Finally, this process must move faster. 3 years later, we’re still planning. We won’t (as the CLCPA claims), “encourage other jurisdictions” or “provide an example of how such strategies can be implemented” if we ourselves do everything just under the wire. | ||
| Julia,Davis | The rush to meet unrealistic goals regarding green energy that the State of New York has put forth is going to impact upstate residents negatively. The Office of renewable Energy Siting which rules by fiat, just comes into our small towns and tramples local control. According to the April 2-3 edition of the Daily Star, four large solar farms are to be installed in Schoharie County and not one of these projects is wanted or needed by the towns that are having it forced on them. My questions: 1) why are they using pristine farmland? Why not put the solar arrays on top of warehouses, Walmarts, factories or on all of the abandoned strip malls that dot the landscape? Put them on Long Island or on the roof of every building in NYC where all of that power will be needed. 2) Are those who are building these solar arrays going to be held accountable for the removal of these panels when they reach the end of their useful lives? Return the farmland to its original state? It could be done by requiring them to hold funds for these purposes in escrow until such time as it is needed. I do not consider it very socially just that the upstate population has this forced upon them. Inner city people are not the only ones who should be considered for social justice. | ||
| Shawn,McFarlane | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| John,Capodice | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. Gas is good! | ||
| Kevin,James | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Ted,Marshall | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Amy,Maycock | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Pedro,Barry | Association of Energy Affordability, Inc. | ||
| James,Sauntry | I’m glad to see someone doing something before it’s too late..!! | ||
| John,Day | To reduce carbon emissions and meet the UN goal of 1.5 degrees, we must include all parts of the scoping plan in the final recomendations. All goals of the CLCPA must be achieved. The plan must also include carbon pricing across the economy. | ||
| Jennifer,Leaver | I read the highlights from Senator Stec on a flyer and I am NOT in favor of discontinuing natural gas in the country nor in NYS. Until we have reliable and affordable energy from alternative sources and until this reliable and affordable alternative is PROVEN effective, reliable, and affordable, we should continue allowing natural gas in all buildings and appliances. The most ridiculous concept is to have NO gasoline automobile sales by 2035. I am NOT in favor of this plan. Jenni Leaver | ||
| Debra ,Day | After reviewing the climate action councils draft scoping plan, I understand the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, however I feel that the cost to do so in such a short period of time will greatly impact low to moderate income families. I feel that that needs to be taken into consideration as the cost of living in New York state is becoming prohibitive. Debra Day | ||
| Adele,Douglas | I am in full favor of moving ahead as quickly as possible to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I understand it will be a difficult transition but that we have no choice if we are to leave behind a decent environment for future generations. Thank you for all the work that went into this plan. I hope that it will be adopted and implemented as quickly as possible. NY can be a leader for the rest of the country. | ||
| William,Wisnewski | Long Islanders already pay some of the highest electric utility rates in the country. There are two components in this plan, effect on electric rates, and effect as an individual homeowner. There are no specifics on these costs. The gas will be shut off, and we'll be handed the bill later, this seems to be by design. As for electric rates, the leasing and construction of wind generation, as well as the necessary transmission upgrades, are already projected to cost more than Shoreham, which still hasn't had the principle started to be payed down yet. When asked about specifics on rates, neither LIPA, PSEG, or winning bidders, are able to give what the increase will be per kwh. Why is that? Who buys a product or service, without knowing the cost in advance? As for individual homeowner, heat pump systems already cost between 30k-50k on Long Island. Those prices have increased 12% in the last 6 months alone. When the state proposes to "strategically" decommission gas mains as early as 2030, the cost will be much higher. Then there's a cost to have an electrician to run a 240 volt line to stove, dryer, and hot water heater previously running on gas, that will add at least 5k more per homeowner. I've been told this is fearmongering asking about these costs, I call it due diligence. Nobody is denying the a clean energy future is required, and the original 2050 time frame was reasonable. Whether this electrification is being subsidized by ratepayers, taxpayers, or homeowners, the exact costs are required in advance, as those 3 entities are one in the same. This is an ill conceived, short on specifics plan, that will have devestating effects on the economy, homeowners, and Long Island alike. Who will want or be able to live on Long Island, when we finally receive the bill? | ||
| Steven,Szvetics | Hi, I am voiceing my disapproval to the "CAC" ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction and zero emissions power generation requirements. This plan is an overreach and to aggressive approach to solving the greenhouse emissions. No new gas service to existing buildings by 2024 No natural gas within newly constructed buildings by 2024 No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating clothes drying by 2030 No gasoline - automobile sales by 2035 The above will add enormously to the cost of living and is way to aggressive. the dates are simply unrealistic. Steven A. Szvetics | ||
| Sharon,Riznyk | Let me start by saying this is the most ridiculous plan I've ever heard of. It appears to be a scenario of good intentions causing very bad results. First of all, full electric isn't the answer or the cure. It isn't without emissions/carbon impact or it's problems. Given the fact that our current electric grid in NYS isn't always fully capable of handling our current electric load, adding added usage on without corresponding upgrades is ludicrous. I've attended several meetings hosted by National Fuel, National Grid, and Buffalo Office Managers Association (BOMA) which showed the ultimate excessive cost to all New Yorkers from this plan. For instance, the estimate to upgrade an average Western NY home to electric ranges from $20,000-$50,000. Natural Gas is a clean energy. I propose using more natural gas in combination with electric, and other renewable clean energy sources as opposed to eliminating natural gas. I ask that those involved with this plan do their research as to the realistic long term costs to the businesses and citizens of NY before implementing this devastating plan under its current proposed scope. Starting as early as 2024 with stopping access to new natural gas lines and appliances is not realistic. Also, the lack of communication about this legislation to the public is criminal in my opinion. Notice should be made so all New York citizens are aware of it. I only learned of it by chance due to my work in property management. I know for a fact that most home owners have no idea about the legislation or how the plans will affect them in the very near future. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration of my concerns and comments. I know they are shared by many. | ||
| Michael,Defayette | I oppose this. Every facet of this I find problems with. Please try something else. | ||
| Kyle,Strober | Association For A Better Long Island | On behalf of the Association for a Better Long Island and Long Island Builders Institute please find our uploaded letter expressing our serious concerns regarding the Climate Action Council's Draft Scoping Plan. | has attachment |
| Paul,Fracchia | How will enough electricity be generated to meet the needs of NYers? To replace the electricity generated by fossil fuels with solar, hydro etc still won't be enough in the next 15 years. Public transportation is out of the question for those of us living in rural areas. We depend upon our cars for all our daily needs. The charging time for an all-electric vehicle is still too long. If the grid goes down we are vulnerable in many ways. Is there any provision for this? My backup is a natural gas generator. What will we use in the future? The cost of this plan will drive more NYers and businesses from the state. I feel that the timelines are too ambitious considering the current technologies. | ||
| Seth,Stark | NYS tax payer | Air pollution is down 73% since 1970 so it deceiving to the public to present this as a dire emergency. Having taken classed regarding environmental economics at Cornell, I'm afraid this proposed legislation will be another blow to NYS economy and increase the number of people fleeing the state. How is there no mention of the devastation mining for lithium, cobalt and nickle is causing. The power grid can't sustain the anticipated draw this will cause. The parties that seem to benefit most from this proposal are those in the renewable energy field. If passed, I have no doubt the adverse effects this policy will have on NYS. | |
| Michael,Kohrer | 1. Where do gas-powered vehicles such as ATV's, motorcycles and snowmobiles fit into this plan? Will they eventually need to be zero-emission and if so, when? If not, why? 2. Will there be restrictions and/or bans on wood burning such as backyard fire pits, people burning brush for disposal and wood burning stoves? Wood is a source of CO2 and particulates when burned. | ||
| Scott,hair | I am completely against this move to drastically move our state away from fossil fuels so quickly. As if energy costs are high enough, this would compound the problem. The middle and lower class will suffer the most under these measures. The infrastructure hasn't been completely established to support this move, nor is there sufficient alternatives available at reasonable prices comparable to fossil fuels. This would yet another reason to leave the state for a state that still has common sense. This initiative will keep this state at dead last regarding every aspect of life. | ||
| Suzanna,Bernd | I read the scoping plan overview. I found it overly complicated. I just want to know what any new requirements will be. Also, as a citizen with great interest in this plan, must I really read all 341 pages of the full plan so that I know what chapters my comments touch on? That's absurd. It's not a way to gather meaningful feedback from citizens. Living in a rural community, there are no economies of scale to make public transportation efficient. I need to have my own vehicle if I am to work and spend my money in the area. I am not interested in an electric car. I cannot take the time on long trips to stop and recharge. I am not interested in bio fuels that hurt the environment more than using fossil fuels. It's my understanding that corn additives in our fuel has been found to hurt the planet more overall than the original fossil fuels. We must examine the full impact of all recommendations. How much energy and other resources does it take? Will New York businesses be competitive with others if they have these additional burdens to bear for costs? If more businesses leave, where will New Yorkers work? It is my personal responsibility to take care of the planet for future generations. I do so responsibly. Do not force your plan on me. We live in a capitalist society. If I want to buy an appliance that uses a certain fuel, than let me do so within the free market system. This is massive goverment overreach. I thought we lived in a democracy with a capitalist economy. | ||
| Eric,Unkauf | While I understand a goal of reducing carbon emissions, I think much more work needs to be done to improve the existing electrical grid coupled with stability and storage issues that need to be addressed BEFORE the state plans to eliminate or curtail natural gas. It is my understanding that grid at times in the state operates near capacity (right now this is typically on the hottest days in the summer), before more load is added and we potentially develop near capacity loads on the coldest days in the winter (which also tend to be times of lowest solar generation) , there needs to be some serious work done to make sure New York does not create more problems than it solves. | ||
| Pete,Cafaro | You are trying to force change with no suitable alternatives. Without first developing feasible substitutes for that which you are banning, you will be creating a disaster. If you think people are fleeing New York now, just wait! | ||
| Stephanie,Fiorentino | This, like so many aspects of NY Government, is OVERREACHING and detrimental to the TAX PAYING residents of this state. What happened in Texas in February 2021 will happen here if this plan is implemented. Natural gas is affordable and readily available to a large population of the state, and the switch to electric would be cost prohibitive to the tax payers, both individually and collectively. In addition, the new strain on the infrastructure will lead to higher demand and cost increases for tax payers. This is a very shortsighted solution and should be done by the consumer as they prefer not as a dictation from the government who seems to be appealing to a small minority group that prefers to rely on wind energy (which causes an upset in the ecosystem with the destruction of many bird species), and electric (including batteries which require mining and the disposal of hazerdous waste once the batteries have exceeded their useful life) rather than cost effective models that have been continuously improved upon. | ||
| Adrian,Arnold | My mother died eight years ago. The climate crisis and the environment were the most important issues in her civic engagement. I am her daughter and feel just as strongly, that for my grand children to thrive anything and everything that can be done to stop the warming of our planet must be accomplished. I can not attend the meeting at Binghamton University, but please know that I and my husband look at Climate legislation and action as usually the number one issue upon which we vote and about which we care. Thank you for your work. | ||
| Dan,Wolf | Hi, In general the plan stinks..... It is not reasonable or responsible to expect a whole state to switch in such a short time frame. The cost to the common working class is far beyond what is stated. The plan should not encompass rebates, free items, etc, as they are all temporary and do not help for the long whole with the costs associated with adaptation to the program. We as a whole are one of the cleanest nations in the world, and all of these changes will only total a small percentage of improvement overall. The big picture is that it will cost all the average people tens of thousands of dollars more to make these changes. For example - Electric vehicle mandates will put a surge on electricity production, created by multiple sources, in turn causing pollutions simply in a different form, stressing our grid without an update plan and causing homeowner to have to rewire homes at great costs just to support a plug-in vehicle. Also keep in mind electric vehicles will soon cost more to charge and will not be free, as they are not in other states already (surprise). Lastly they work in city locations just fine, but are not feasible and limit travel and tourism in the more rural areas, where some folks drive many miles for work and shopping. I agree we all need to adapt, but we need to do so responsibly as to not put everyone out of work, and to spite what we all love about our freedoms in the USA. I do believe the plan should be tabled, and consideration for free or tax breaks for commercial businesses and industry (the bulk of power and gas use) to reduce their dependence on some of these things. Gas is already clean burning, and my understanding is that it can be made cleaner. Limiting natural gas at this point is just foolish, as you can limit oil and diesel potentially, but we should be supporting the changeover to Natural Gas at this point and encourage more use or switchovers to it, and then look at possibilities in 10-20 years for solutions | ||
| Jackie,Weisberg | 350Brooklyn; NY Renews | The CAC put forth 3 scenarios for our climate future. Of the three, low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion and the simultaneous acceleration of electrification of both buildings and transportation to ensure clean air and a healthy environment is my choice. In order to reach a zero-emissions power sector by 2040, NY needs a rapid, large-scale transition away from fossil fuels.The Scoping Plan must ensure that the mandates put forth by the CAC are legally enforceable against industries & include timelines for the reduction of emissions by sector. Provisions for environmental justice and emission reduction mean nothing if they cannot be enforced or if there aren't rules in place for what happens when our climate justice laws are broken. It’s vital that the Final Scoping Plan reject false solutions to the climate crisis like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, biomass, waste incineration, and “green” hydrogen. It must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies. Statewide, 43% of our energy is produced by fossil fuel generation. In order to reach our emissions goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030, we’ll need to see a big increase in the use of renewable energy technology, as well as ban on any new or repowered gas plants.The CAC must establish a Worker and Community Assurance Fund. Right now, this chapter fails to identify a mechanism to provide adequate support for displaced workers in fossil-fuel-dependent industries as well as to communities who rely on such industries, including wage replacement, pension support, and funding for lost tax base funding. NY must lead the nation by strong, brave, progressive, transformational laws and the plans in the CAC must be funded by fossil fuel companies. | |
| Richard ,Fennelly | CoilPod LLC | Mikhail Haramati and Greg Hale are already familiar with this topic and have our previously submitted information and data. It is essential that programs and incentives need to be in the Scoping Plan to induce owners of refrigeration and AC to do preventive maintenance on such equipment. It would be an additional way to reduce emissions over the Scoping Plan’s current mention of HFC refrigerant replacement which deals generally with reduction of direct emissions. Our maintenance suggestion deals with coil cleaning, filter replacement and related servicing to cut unneeded power plant emissions via energy efficiency gains over the status quo where such maintenance is often not performed. Attached is a chart dealing with condenser coil cleaning of commercial refrigeration units - note the blue bar at the top. | |
| Cynthia M,Fitzgerald | First, there is way too much material in this plan to go back and forth to find what I want to comment on. I am still unclear as to what you have prioritized. So, I am doing a blanket comment. Eliminating gas (natural, propane or other) service to consumers is not fair. Gas is affordable and cheaper and already in use in too many places. Electricity is very expensive. Automobiles No Gasoline autos is a mistake. A combo is probably smarter. There won't be enough charging spaces or towns will look like pumping stations. What does one do when the minerals needed for the batteries have been depleted? Mining will disrupt many nature balances. And, how will and where the expended batteries be disposed of? Another landfill? Improving public transportation is important. It needs to frequent, close enough to neighborhoods and address walkways. Not every neighborhood has sidewalks. Smaller van type vehicles might work in some areas. Solar panel farms already ruin the look of many areas. What about phasing in solar roofs and shutters? | ||
| Anne Marie,Bell | I disagree 100% with this aggressive agenda. It will place more stress on the Electrical Grid and become more expensive for NY Taxpayers, especially us Senior Citizens. Then we will have rolling blackouts like California. Call out China for their greenhouse gasses. Don't penalize us!!! | ||
| Allen,Hunter | NY State resident | Regular reporting on the progress made, or not made, in realizing the goals of the CLCPA will be important. It will be crucial that the agencies involved in implementing the plan rely as little as possible on the facts, interpretations, and analyses of business, business lobbyists that will remain relentless in their attempts to shape the law, interpretations of the law in ways that favor business interests. These efforts, quite understandable from the point of view of business interests, will only rarely also be in the best interests of the public. The CLCPA is intended to meet the interests of the public, not business. Constant vigilance will be needed. | |
| Albert,Zaepfel | Private Citizen | This plan is outrageous and is not practical. We all want a clean environment, however, this plan is over reaching and will kill the States' already suffering economy. The young people will leave this state exacerbating the current state's population exodus. The cost of electric cars is out of reach. The cost of electric energy is so much higher than fossil fuels. The poor, lower and middle income earners cannot absorb any more increases in a highly taxed state. The electric grid is a mess and will be unable to sustain the large increase in usage. Most current electric plants in NYS use Coal or natural gas. They will need expansion so where is the benefit to the environment? Nuclear energy is fraught with negatives (leaks, disposal) and will take years to build. The massive amount of batteries for electric cars will need to have the hazardous waste generated disposed of. So where do we dispose of the acids and heavy metals? Landfills? We are simply trading soil & water pollution for cleaner air. I am against this proposed legislation! | |
| John,Keevert | It is vital that we rapidly reduce natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. This will require building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). Also vital is ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. I hope you will enact incentives for building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Incentives are clearly needed to achive the change-over on the timescale needed by CLCPA. It is plain ridiculous to talk about the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. Absolutely not! This specious exception serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment. I ask you to follow CLCPA guidelines and support targeted funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who are suffering the most from pollution and global warming. | ||
| Andrea,Porter | Hugely important is the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition as they have been in the past and currently. | ||
| Jeff,Olson | The Third Mode | PLEASE include walking, bicycling and trails as significant elements log NY State’s climate strategy. These zero-carbon modes already provide significant benefits in our state. More than 6% of commuters walk or bike to work, and more than 20% of all mobility in the metro NYC region is human powered. The Empire State Trail, Citi Bike, Complete Streets and other initiatives all need to be supported, expanded and made an integral part of our response to climate change. | |
| Kevin ,Butler | Taxpayer | ||
| Jack,Smith | Vastola Heating and Cooling LLC | To whom it may concern, As a middle class taxpayer and life long resident of the State of New York, I am perplexed by the fallacies of the proposed plan. A common sense look at what is termed as "Renewable Energy" should lead everyone to a common sense revelation; "Renewable Energy" is neither renewable , not is it "Green". The amount of energy expended to make solar panels, coupled with the components (petroleum-based and harmful to the environment) will only increase carbon emissions and toxic landfill space needed at the end of its useful life. That, taken with the fact that our electrical grid cannot support the increase of the electrical usage that would surely surge exponentially, makes this plan doomed from the beginning. Also, the economic impact on everyday taxpayers with limited income revenues, makes this proposal both ludicrous and unsustainable, which will result a mass exodus of citizens to other states thereby eroding the tax base. This plan must be killed before irreparable damage occurs! Thank You! | |
| Andy,Ball | Thank you in advance for your review and consideration of my comments. Holding aside all the good intentions which presumably you have all brought to this initiative, those of us who have been following climate-centric top-down policy making cannot for a minute support the Climate Act nor its enabling tentacles. The impracticality of the net-zero dream has been made vividly clear in other parts of the globe. The intermittency of wind and sun demands storage solutions/capacity which do not currently and may never exist. This cannot be overlooked, nor wantonly embraced in the hope that we will "figure it out later". The (proven) byproduct of the lurch away from linear energy sources is an agonizing combination of dramatic energy price increases and plummeting reliability - see Germany as well as part of NZ and Australia. Moreover, when these negative impacts appear they will disproportionately affect LMI and other disadvantaged populations - who can least afford to grapple with increases in their fixed costs. This fairly obvious peril stands quite at odds with the virtuous language that courses through every page of this the scoping document in the guise of climate justice. Proceeding as you envision would make all responsible parties willful outlaws from climate justice. Again, I cannot support this vision - which emanates from the same Albany that has long sought to eliminate climate-friendly nuclear power. Ironic, inconsistent, and troubling. Please do not advance this unjust, economically reckless policy adventurism. Again, thank you for your consideration. AB | ||
| melody,chabue | I wish to oppose the above plan on the Draft Scoping Plan. I agree we need to fix the climate, however, by making the public buy electric cars, use electricity for all of their appliances, and heating, will put a great deal of financial stress on the average American Household. We have researched converting our house from gas to electricity - the cost is $30,000 to convert, and all of the plumbers we have talked with, (and there have been numerous) have said, the new system would cost as much in repair bills as the system would be to put in. In their words, “you better have your wallet out” when you convert to this system. There are a lot of problems that need to be worked out and unfortunately, the consumer will be paying for these mistakes. In addition, electric cars are very expensive, so the cost to run these cars will be a lot more than the average person can handle. The batteries, alone will be very expensive. By converting to electrical energy, how about the summertime, when everyone is running their AC? How much electrical power will strain the electrical grid? THere will be more blackouts than ever! In summary, the draft scoping plan is far fetched and with higher prices we are already forking out, this will strain the average persons budget in no time. Please reconsider — I am def. opposed | ||
| Mary ,Vadas | We need to be aware of the needs of our environment. Taking care of Mother Earth is every responsible persons duty. But it absolutely does not justify our government taking total control of what resources are available to our NYS residents. Gas and fossil fuels should absolutely NOT be eliminated from our daily lives and in no way should government exercise control over our residents in this manner. Just another reason to have more people leave New York State. If governmental bodies in out beautiful state of NY were more concerned about freedom and less about control, you would see people return to our great state. And more than that, you would see a healthier NYS | ||
| Matthew,Desmarais | Energy Catalyst LLC | Dear Climate Action Council, Our company writes to you in support of the several important measures that you are considering. Among them, we call for you to: Ban fossil fuel heating & equipment in new buildings. End fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. Initiate a managed transition from utility gas to clean heating and cooling in existing buildings to be completed by 2050, with an interim target of 2 million decarbonized buildings by 2030. Include target dates for zero-emissions standards when replacing fossil fuel equipment at the end of its useful life, together with a program to affordably weatherize and upgrade buildings. Commit at least $1 billion annually to support energy efficiency and electrification for Disadvantaged Communities and low- and moderate-income households. Immediately begin to identify workforce development needs and develop a plan to scale up the workforce for building decarbonization. Our Albany based company has developed a technology that can convert homes with existing boilers to geothermal more easily and for about half of the current cost. Our company is proof that the laws that are being considered will have secondary benefits to NY; the rush to convert millions of homes in NY will spur new innovations and make NY a global leader in clean heating. Best regards, Matthew Desmarais Owner, Head Engineer Energy Catalyst Technologies | |
| Steve,Schweichler | Hello, Who ever thought that we have enough available electricity in NYS to safely power new buildings and all new electric cars must have not taken 7th grade math. Simply put if you make every home and vehicle electric you wont be able to power them up using the existing grid. I can provide more info if you like. | ||
| Beverly,Conklin | After reviewing Senator Rob Ortt's mailed card, the following needs to be addressed. Natural gas is the most efficient means of energy use. America has gas resources to become completely independent of foreign countries that are our enemies. We built our first home in Getzville, NY in 1976 during which there was a moratorium on new gas lines. Electric was our only option. Our totally electric home cost of energy was astronomical with monthly usage. It put a strain on our finances and was totally not efficient. As far as electric cars...it's completed absurd. Everything I've read regarding mandates of these changes completely with cars by 2035 is another form of communistic rule. More thought needs to be in place with this dictating attitude. Where is our America, land of the free! | ||
| janet,Loss | The change in power suppling elements must be an evolution. NOT a revolution! To Mandate change, to force a change that has not been fully vetted usually results in more problems than anticipated because of the unknowns that always appear. This is why I against the FORCED changes that are being proposed in the Climate Action Council's Scoping Plan. The changes to alternative fuel and power sources will take time and ingenuity. It seems the ingenuity part has NOT been fulling evolved yet. The windmills do not last and the repairs are very expensive and waist material is massive once they fail and need to be disassembled. Then there is another problem with the location of the wind mills, some of the areas are zones for migratory bird routes and the massacre that would happen is unspeakable. The Solar panels are being protested by local farmers. They claim the panels leak and would destroy the land. (I don't know the research but that is one of the claims) I have a friend who needs to income from solar panels to save their farm. The neighboring farms blocked the installation of the panels even though the land would have been dual use with sheep providing the service of keeping the vegetation down, and a combination of meat and wool sales. With so much local opposition to the change and expense and upkeep of the equipment this is not IN ANY WAY going to be a quick process. More needs to be done in reducing the expense and letting the process take the time that is needed for finding better processes and get the cooperation from the people involved. WE THE PEOPLE should not be FORCE into anything. | ||
| Daniel,Brooks | I am not in favor of this expensive ill concieved plan with expensive consequences to all people. It will just make more new yorkers vote out the present goverment or leave this state. | ||
| Michael,Fisk | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Sheila,Shaffer | Ulster County and specifically Kingston was hit with the worst ice storm we have ever seen in February. I was without power for 60 hours and Saturday night, the temperature dipped to 0 degrees. While I don't have a generator (which works on natural gas/propane), many of my neighbors do and it was the only thing that kept their pipes from freezing (I had a radiator burst about 6 hours before regaining power) and their basements from flooding. My house is 110 years old and works on a boiler system (gas/forced hot water/radiators). There are no ducts in my home and it is divided into smaller spaces. I would need at least 3 ductless systems to heat/cool my home. My neighborhood is notorious for losing power and to rely only on Central Hudson's electric grid is a frightening thought! Nothing but electric vehicles? Perhaps by then they will have figured out how to increase the range of a battery, but there is currently only 1 electric vehicle on the market that could get me home to Syracuse to see my 92 year old mother without having to being charged somewhere along the route! A lot has to improve before this is a reasonable idea. And we haven't even thought about how we're going to recycle those batteries. I listened to a podcast that indicated it isn't cost effective to recycle them. | ||
| James,Pisani | I believe this bill is truly a detrimental bill for NYS. Besides putting millions out of jobs, it seems to be a much hasted bill. I am all for going green, but totally eliminating fossil fuel use is completely unreasonable. How would one cook food? No more bbqing? What happens when we have major storms and the electric grid has issues? We can barely withstand typical rain storms without power loss. If we rely too much on electricity we will be doomed. I support a blend of resources, not putting all of our eggs into one basket. | ||
| james,white | After a quick look at your Climate Action Council Draft Plan I have many questions. What do you anticipate as the NYS peak electrical load in 2035; when everybody is heating with electricity and driving electric cars. Do you anticipate that generation will grow to meet that need? I retired as the Chief System Operator at the NY Power Authority so I have some experience with electrical power system operation. I see that in the 2040 projected energy production chart that you have 62% of generation being supplied by intermittent renewable resources, that is a very unreliable system configuration. I would anticipate that there would be rolling blackouts similar to what California is now experiencing due to insufficient supply. If you achieve all your outlined goals what will be the New York state contribution to the worldwide effort reduce carbon emissions and how will that specifically impact the global environment? | ||
| Amanda,Locke | Major City Water Supply | 1. Chapter 15, Agriculture & Forestry, Key Sector Strategy AF20, Components of the Strategy (p. 228): The strategy to research cost-effective methods of using short rotation woody crops to sequester carbon on marginal lands references the potential use of Miscanthus. Miscanthus is a highly invasive, non-native species. Recommend limiting cost-effectiveness research to native, or at minimum non-invasive, species. 2. Appendix B, CJWG Feedback on Advisory Panel Recommendations, Agriculture & Forestry panel, p. B-16, slide 31: The slide states that biomass “isn’t a smart solution” and that biodigesters are “inherently unsustainable.” It offers no scientific justification for either assertion, nor does it identify any climate justice issues with the proposed strategies. Instead, it appears to substitute opinions of the CJWG members for the science-based determination of the experts on the Agriculture & Forestry Advisory Panel. Recommend identifying concerns raised by the CJWG that appear to be unrelated to climate justice issues and requesting the CJWG identify the associated climate justice issue. It doesn’t seem like the role of the CJWG should be to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the strategies proposed by the various expert Advisory Panels, just to evaluate them in terms of impact on overburdened communities. | |
| Andrew ,Zysej=k | This Climate act is nothing more than massive government overreach. The idea you can change everything over to electricty is ludicrous and unnatural. Plus it's expensive and very unproductive. Perfect example is what happened to the Solar Panel's in Texas. This system cannot hold the whole state even with windmills and solar panels. As these do not work all of the time like Natural resources do. Plus natural resources are cheaper and are more reliable. There are consequences to this act. Many homes will be without heat as many people will not follow this act. They simply will be put in harms way many will freeze to death. You do not have the right to tell me I cannot have a camp fire. You do not have the right to tell me I can't heat my house with wood. The idea the whole state can run off electricity is stupid. NYC runs off of Niagara Fall's energy. Which is ran by diesel powered engines. Which makes you hypocrites what's good for you isn't good for us. Plus gasoline cars and trucks can be towed and moved whenever needed. Electric cars cannot plus there are not enough charging stations around for this crap. Who wants to spend 60,000 dollars on an electric car. Plus charging hookups inside garages and houses. Very un-afordable for NYS. The average family can't afford it. If you want this to work you need to have a half way medium between the natural resources and electricity. Plus many of the items needed to produce material for solar panels and windmills is made out of toxic materials that destroy the so called environment. This really is all about Government control from liberals. Where do you save money that the state does not have? We simply want to be left alone. | ||
| Farah,Stahl | This climate act is a waste of money and funds. The electric grid of New York State is not big enough nor can it sustain a state wide electric car, house heating system. The windmills don't work half of the time. Nor do solar panels. Did you forget Niagara Power Authority is run with diesel engines? Your hypocrites. What's good for you is fine but not for us! Plus it's my inalienable right to drive whatever I want. Be that a gas car, horse, or bike. I am deeply concerned about the massive overreach this requires. Have you forgot it's my unalienable right to heat my house the way I want too. Be that firewood or natural gas. I don't need you telling me I can't. The grid cannot sustain the whole state you need a half way measure between electric and natural resources. Plus as far as land goes it's my unalienable right to run my property the way I see fit. As far as heating homes if you take away natural resources a lot of people will die from freezing to death simply because the system cannot hold the whole state. This act is a massive problem for public health. Natural resources are healthy half of the products used for solar panels and wind mills are toxic and expensive so where do you really save? Simply put there are no benefits to this plan leave us alone! | ||
| David,Lindberg | While I agree that we should become better as a community, and State, driving to reduce C02 emissions based on all relevant science based data on both sides of the political isle, I see a major flaw in the proposed plans. By outlawing all natural gas appliances and gas service to new, and existing, buildings/construction produces one over arching challenge... we as the end consumer will be 100% reliant on one company for all of these services - the electric company. This creates a monopoly of service and will create an opportunity for the electric companies within New York State to gouge their consumers, people like me, because we would have no other options to run the services. Just last year, I was sent a letter stating that my local community was entering a deal with a new solar company. My local government asked me to either: accept the new solar provider or opt-out and continue to use my current electricity provider National Grid. The new solar company changed my service without my consent. I needed to call back the National Grid and tell them to lock my account and to not allow my agreement to be changed. National Grid said that they could do nothing and I would have to contact the solar company who illegally changed my service. While the solar company did change me back and it got ironed out. They did this to many consumers and wanted to buy us off with Amazon gift cards "for our trouble". If these policies go through, and we continue to lose choice, I and many others will leave New York State. There are many other States in the USA who care about their people. You cannot keep railroading your one sided political values that only reflect 50% of the State on the entire State. | ||
| Scott,Loveland | See my uploaded file. | has attachment | |
| Salvatore,Borosky | Please reject these unrealistic and unaffordable plans to ban natural gas appliances and gasoline powered vehicles. Why take these affordable options away from consumers? It will probably take a significant amount of fossil fuels to generate the electricity needed to bolster the power grid anyway. Look at the problems that occurred in Texas in the winter of 2021. Is western NY going to have to deal with the possibility of rolling blackouts in the middle of winter? This plan will hurt tax payers and likely cause more people to leave the state. | ||
| Edward,Maier | NY State resident/taxpayer | ||
| Lawrence,Senf | Do away with Green Energy Initiatives The long term effects are even more damaging than carbon use | ||
| Pamela,Steinkirchner | I am writing in reference to the ambitious and irresponsible Scoping Plan that has the potential to devastate the New York state economy. Tax payers cannot afford these changes and will be forced to leave the state. There is no existing infrastructure to support this extreme plan affordably. Relying on electric from wind and solar as the sole source of energy for all utilities, appliances, vehicles, engines is an absurd plan. We should not be passing this bill! Of course, we should be good stewards of our planet, however, it is common knowledge that our climate has been erratic since earth’s creation. This issue has been completely politicized and is overblown. Instead, we should take time to develop new methods of providing alternative energy without prematurely launching restrictive and harmful proposals. Once reasonable alternatives are available, people will automatically be drawn to switch over to them without being forced through this overreaching proposal. New York state has a wealth of natural gas supplies that we should be harvesting and providing to our community. This is a clean, affordable and effective energy source for which we already have the infrastructure in place . Along with our scientists and engineers continuing to develop more efficient and clean running gas engines, we should; • focus on cleaning up our roadsides and reusing rather than replacing products. • encourage businesses to continue to allow employees to work from home rather than commuting. • create an awareness among our citizens to do all we can to keep our environment clean and live responsibly. Thank you, Pamela Steinkirchner | ||
| Alber,Hauck | This plan is completely idiotic! It lacks a proper understanding of science, waste generation and economy. This must not be approved if you value the quality of life and future of New Yorkers. The attached six minute video should give direction for further research. | ||
| Patsy,Scribner | I don't understand why we are getting rid of natural gas. My furnace and hot water tank, generator run on natural gas. And Electric cars are having issues with batteries. Worry about other things. Thank you | ||
| Ted,Beall | I am against no new gas service beginning in 2024...new or existing buildings. I am against no new natural gas appliances. I am against limiting the sales of gas powered vehicles. I will NOT vote for ANYONE who supports such legislation. | ||
| Christine,Shade | Hello! I am writing in regards to the scoping plan to eliminate all gas cars, services and equipment. This plan is extremely detrimental to our state and low income persons in particular. The cost of converting all furnaces and heating systems to electric is exorbitant. The cost of not being able to repair and replace gas appliances is bad for the environment as many will be thrown away. The technology and infrastructure needed to have efficient farm equipment and trucks simply does not exist and likely will not in the next 10 years. People are already fleeing the state in record numbers due to the cost of living and ridiculous rules. We, ourselves, enjoy traveling and camping. Two things that will end as there isn’t an electric truck to pull our camper and who wants to add time to traveling by stopping every 2 hours for 30 minutes to charge. This will not improve the environment, it will worsen it with waste and mining for the batteries. Maybe, in 20 or 30 years when the technology is better, then consider it. We are no where near that point and people cannot afford the cost of converting everything within the next 13 years. So much for consideration of the poor and those who depend in gas powered vehicles for their jobs. I can honestly say, it this goes through, myself and thousands of others will leave NY. Sad, I’ve lived here over 50 years. However, you are taxing me to death and creating way too much expense too close to my retirement. Sincerely, Christine M Shade, FNP-BC | ||
| Anthony ,Pagano | I Do not agree with the Climate act/ Draft scoping plan. This should all be set to a vote at election time. Not by a committee . I do Agee with some of the Green House emission.But this is not the solution Their is a big cost to the consumer as well in these changes.I can tell you a million reason why I feel this way. I vote no.. | ||
| tom,meiler | How can a ban on new natural gas appliances and gasoline propelled cars help anything? Coal, oil and natural gas will be consumed at NEW RECORD LEVELS by the power companies to replace and manufacture the electrical power needed, and of course the additional costs will be passed on .Even now, electric heating is considered quite expensive and inefficient....yet people want to force it on us. | ||
| gary,Benker | this plan is great reason to leave ny state there is no mention of the fact that roughly 80% of batteries come from the Chinese communist party if we have learned nothing else from this pandemic it should be that we need to cut ties to our dependance on china. This agenda will hurt many businesses within ny state. Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy and this plan looks to eliminate it.somehow people think that electricity just magically appears it does not work that way.We should look to the failed energy policy of the european union and note how they are now hostage to another comunnist gov't ...russia. This plan seems short sighted at best, full of fluff but no reality as to substance and will make us dependent on supply chains that can cripple us at any time, and take away our freedom and independence . Thank you, Soon to be non- resident of New York State. Gary Benker | ||
| CHRISTINA,FADALE | Natural gas and gasoline are not energy sources I oppose. Wind and solar is dependent on products not produced in this country and have not proved as productive, reliable or affordable. This plan is not something I support. | ||
| Laurie,Moore | This plan is unsustainable and a dream of the lefts green new deal at the cost of the NYS taxpayers! Most people cannot afford electric vehicles nor want them... this non-sense is being shoved down ny residents throats! Politicians fulfilling their dream and lining their pockets with their investments,FORGETTING OR DISREGARDING WHO THEY WORK FOR! Solar panels?? Who can afford all these additions?? No wonder people are moving out of NY! Stop the non sense and put the hard working taxpayers FIRST!! Politicians getting richer and taxpayers getting poorer! | ||
| Michael,Hauser | Improving the climate can be a worthy goal, but your proposals go too far in altering our lives. I am especially concerned with the elimination of natural gas service to buildings and appliances and gasoline automobiles. You are asking too much of us in changing the way we live and in the higher costs associated with these changes. This plan should not go forward. Thank you. | ||
| Michele,Chatfield | I believe the idea of lowering the carbon footprint is a great concept but the reality is that the proposed changes are too aggressive and lack substance to initiate in the timeframe outlined. Electric Cars: Great concept but the reality is nobody wants to sit in a parking lot for hours to recharge the car battery. To be honest, that increases the threat of being victimized while waiting in a lonely parking lot. Not everyone has the financial means to install the electrical lines that will be needed to charge at home and many of us don't have a garage to place our car in to charge it. Studies have been conducted and proven that battery life goes down substantially in cold weather. New York is a cold climate state and that would mean significantly less miles per battery charge aka more charging time. A waste of my personal free time. Our employers won't have charging ports for us so I'm predicting missed work and in a time where nobody wants to work, I don't think the employers are going to appreciate my tardiness due to "charging my car". Just like the battery in a cell phone, when new they hold a charge for a long time but over the life of the unit the charge hold diminishes. Natural Gas Elimination: I heat my home and water with Natural Gas. Natural Gas is considered a "green" fuel so I am not sold on proposals to eliminate natural gas hookups for new building and after 2024. I am not in agreement with your 2030 proposal to "replace fossil fuel equipment (furnaces, hot water tanks, stoves, dryers) with zero emission alternatives". How are struggling home owners going to come up with the finances to pay for a energy overhaul of their home? If you eliminate fossil fuels then our options are solar, electric and wind. Is the NY Government going to pay for this? The current old degraded electrical infrastructure will not support your proposals and I'm certain resides outside of NYC will not receive the funding and attention we deserve. | ||
| Jamie,Button | I think it is unrealistic to expect all of NYS to completely get away from natural gas and gasoline powered vehicles. These proposals increase the financial burden on working class families. Families that are already burdened by childcare costs, rising fuel costs, housing, and food prices. Please do not adopt these proposals. Adding more incentives would be a better plan. Tax credits and financial assistance for corporations and home owners to add solar power and alternative energy sources. | ||
| Daniel,Zayac | I feel the plan is well intended, however ,it is not practical for the following reasons>We need a world decarbonization not just lambasting New Yorkers with a "drop in the bucket approach".>The timeline is way too aggressive to not have a huge logistic impact.>Heat pumps and electric heating are very inefficient in cold climates such as NY state.>The plan would impose immense financial hardships on homeowners when new heating appliances are needed. Both elderly & young families.> Not every home has a compatible system to new equipment & would need modification at the homeowners expense.>Electric vehicles have considerable waste biproducts & pollution which is understated. Battery materials & plastics that can't be recycled need to be disposed of in some way.> The manufacturing processes of conductors and the like have horrible emissions (eg. melting, extruding)>Finite supplies of raw materials exist and in many cases are available only in a limited amount of geographic areas. Just the same as fossil fuels are. This can be a threat to availability in our supply chain and also may impose an increased health risk to the people living in the locations the materials are being mined from. Don't make eliminating our problem an issue for someone else.> While stating the plan would create "hundreds of thousands of jobs" the loss of all the hundreds of thousands of existing jobs was not properly stated.> While several different sources of electrical generation are proposed, I think the rhetorical question of " who is going to pay for the enormous changes to infrastructure required for the production and generation of all this additional electricity?" We all know who will.> The elimination of personal gasoline vehicles is not practical and will impose more hardship, especially in rural areas. No public transportation, no charging stations, way too far to walk or ride a bicycle. | ||
| Natalie,Buley | All these bans need to stop, Electric car, anyone think this through, Who will suffer the expense of them or better yet when the grid cant handle it or someone is on the side because they ran out of power. Banning propane, gas, wood heating, oil. seriously, will NYS provide it all free to every household, Taking land away from sportmans use that is used to provide us with food on the table, banning lead bullets, thats telling every hunter that we can no longer provide family as it has been done for years, turned Ulster county into 2 legislative parts, why, for the green tree hugging democrats to gain more ground, pretty soon nobody will survive . We barely can survive now on what income there is coming in. Going green and banning everything will not benefit many people. This needs to stop, | ||
| Mark,Wilson | This plan is completely delusional. Decarbonization will be tremendously expensive and drive hundreds of thousands of people from NYS. Household energy costs will skyrocket, and rolling blackouts will become permanent. I expect that most of this will never happen because it is stupid. | ||
| Richard,Keene | Reading this plan was arduous at best, not to mention that much of it could have been eliminated. As a long time New York resident I have to say "Sorry people but this plan is total nonsense". Besides being based on studies which have little basis in fact, it purposes solutions to a problem, which have no assurance that they will do anything that will effect the climate. I have no problem with studying ways to improve efficiency and increase power generation capacity, but as a home owner I don't like dictatorial mandates by state, federal or local tyrants. Telling New Yorkers that they can't buy gas powered vehicles after a certain period of time, or implying that moving to urban areas in order to enjoy public transportation is BS. I also do not like the heavy handed Marxism and Critical Race Theory of the Green New Deal being rammed down my throat. Covering Upstate New York with endless wind farms and solar panels or off shore stretches of Long Island Shores with endless wind farms is not solving anything. Neither is electrifying everyones house or vehicle. Renewables such as wind and solar don't work 24/7. Stop wasting my tax money on useless stuff. | ||
| Janet,Nowak | I want to voice my opposition to the Climate Action Council's propositions that would only serve to make New York State an unwelcome and impossible place to live in the future. We have young and old moving out of NYS now, let alone implement propositions that would limit new gas service to existing buildings, prevent natural gas hookups in newly constructed buildings, prevent people from purchasing new natural gas appliances for home use, and preventing sales of gasoline powered vehicles. Please consider what you are doing to the residents of NYS. Please consider a more moderate approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions that would allow people to still live on a modest income. Thank you for considering my opinion. | ||
| Richard,Johnson | Johnson | I'm against this idea that removing natural gas from our lives will make things better. Our home is built on a concrete slab. It is heated by electric baseboard now. We have natural gas stove, water heater and clothes dryer. It will cost me thousands of dollars to upgrade the electric service to accommodate a change from gas to electric required by those appliances this plan is forcing on the public. Everyone knows that electricity is more costly to use than natural gas. Everyone is concerned about producing more clean electricity. However the cleanest way is nuclear and hydro that we don't have enough of. By the way electric vehicles are not clean transportation. They get recharged from power produced by coal fired power plants. It's time to stop putting the cart before the horse and come up with a plan that can work and not destroy our lives with an experiment that will cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars more. | |
| Barbara ,Laduca | These proposals will destroy the middle class of NYS. What will be the estimated cost of these proposals? NYS tends to underestimate the cost of such plans with no regard of the working class. | ||
| Lucille,Bryant | I strongly suggest some experts be consulted on the proposal of banning wood heating. The health of a forest depends upon the removal of dead wood, so that forest fires are not as likely and the more mature trees can emit more oxygen. In cities, the wood ban makes sense, but not in rural areas where the health of trees is extremely important, which actually radiates to a very large area. Also, the cost of implementing wind, solar needs to be considered. What is the start up costs as compared with the return and the reliability. And what is the environmental impact of the neighborhood, the land, the wildlife. It also seems that the technology is available for more efficient ways of wind power, for example, rather than the very tall wind towers. It does seem reasonable to construct solar, as an example, near to where the energy is used. Consider the tops of all the buildings in the cities, just as home owners have solar panels on their own homes. And in so doing, no land is compromised. It is also possible to have fuel efficient vehicles, without the hidden costs and environmental destruction of battery making. | ||
| Joe,Smith | These are my comments attached. | has attachment | |
| Sherri,Giambra | why are you going to change the use of natural gas? This is a needed supply for NY state. Ridiculous. You need to work on things like the Bail Reform issue...This B.S. about the new Bills stadium. Why should my tax dollars go to that? The owners of the team should pay for it. And the Governor taking the money from the Native Americans to pay for it is ridiculous | ||
| Randy,Klossner | As a graduate of SUNY college of environmental science and forestry I have opinions about this proposal. I am all for emission reductions but this proposal seems to have complete lunacy attached to it. A college professor once told me when you mix politics and environmentalism no good can come from it. The emission controls that we have with fossil fuels at present time is the most clean energy we have for the technology we have. We do not have the infrastructure or technology to operate under this proposal. It also seems to be attacking the working middle class. We are already struggling. It is my opinion that the CAC plan would decimate New York. | ||
| Irene,Pedota | Hands off my natural gas!! Our home was built in 1967 and with improvements that were made to our home and gas furnace, it remains one of the most efficiently heated homes. We are retired and natural gas is affordable and clean! Please keep your hands off and don’t attempt to fix what is not broken!! | ||
| Amy,Canzanella | I vote NO to the climate act and the ban of gas and propane. | ||
| Kevin,Smith | Smith | Good Morning, This will serve as my view as far as what our government leaders in NYS are doing is completely moving in the wrong direction. Especially with the CAC program which you are trying to implement. # 1 To try and eliminate the use of natural gas to all new builds.... how are you proposing that thousands of people that live in NYS heat their house??? With electric?? Did you ever take into account the amount of electricity it takes to power up a heater?? As an electrician myself, let me clear this picture.... it takes a lot more electric to power up an electric baseboard heater than it would in BTU's to fire up a furnace... Forcing people to go all electric would up the load on the already overloaded power grid. THINK!!!!! #2 Eliminate all gas vehicles.....hmmm...so where would you like me to start on this?? Electric vehicles are going to need to be plugged in every night... correct?? So again, here you are drawing more power from an overloaded power grid again... The batteries for these electric vehicles are usually made from lithium and usually cost about 40k to produce....where are you getting all the lithium for the batteries?? How is it being harvested?? When the batteries are no longer able to take a charge, how do you plan on recycling them... Ever see the Disney movie WALL-E?? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! | |
| Cassandra,Thaule | We can NOT afford this, and you all know it!! WAIT until affordable technology catches up!! Doing these green energy, zero emissions policies will further cripple every low income person in this state, with the chance to get out of poverty getting harder or downright impossible because of the business climate in our state. | ||
| Michael,Mann | The plan needs to include advanced nuclear power plants as key to meeting our climate goals while minimizing the environmental impact and maximizing the economic impact on local communities. Nuclear power is safe, clean, and reliable. Currently nuclear power provides a large share of no/low carbon emitting generation of electricity in New York state. We must increase the use of nuclear power going forward. I work at the longest running nuclear power plant in the world, which has been operating at over 90% capacity factor for decades. The Ginna nuclear power plant provides not only reliable energy, but also provides high paying careers to the local community. The workers at the plant are the backbone of the local community, volunteering their time as first responders and at local charities. Nuclear power has been the safest method of electric production for over 50 years, it has the smallest environmental impact, emits no carbon during operation and has proven to be the most reliable, it makes sense to expand its use. New York should not only maintain it’s existing plants, but it should also lead the way to a cleaner future with new nuclear power plants. The omission of nuclear power from the proposed plan seems to be a mistake. We can meet our climate goals only if we rely on nuclear energy to displace fossil fuels in addition to the use of solar and wind power when available. Nuclear power is good for the environment, the local community, the state and national security. Energy needs to be reliable, nuclear powerplants routinely store 18-24 months of fuel onsite and are not susceptible to disruptions caused by short term interruptions in fuel supply or weather conditions. Once used nuclear fuel has been safely stored for over 50 years without any adverse environmental or societal impact, what we commonly refer to as “nuclear waste” is potentially fuel for future advanced reactors. I have a nuclear power plant in my ”backyard” and would be happy to have more! | ||
| Richard,Conti | This whole proposal is poorly thought out and ill timed. At a time when we're barely out of the pandemic, New Yorkers are going to need years to recover financially. The Federal and State governments have been spending like drunken sailors. Where is this money going to come from? I am not against going green, but this transition should happen Naturally, as the technology allows. We can't, and won't be able to produce enough green electricity for the proposed demand, nor will the transmission system be able to handle the load by 2030. Add in storm, wind and water damage, this is a recipe for disaster. Yes, oil is dirty, but gas is clean. And yes, fossil fuels are finite, but if we have to rely on them for another hundred years of transition...it is indeed doable. The big polluters are China, Russia, India and Southeast Asia. Make them clean up first. And lastly, the financial ramifications. This is going to cost TRILLIONS. We don't have the infrastructure or generating capacity. It will also pose a severe hardship on the public and business. Conversion costs, new appliances, down time, electric upgrades! No, this is NOT a well thought out plan, no matter how good it SOUNDS. In practice, it's a very, very bad idea! | ||
| Matt,Maloney | I'm electing to vote no for the greenhouse gas bill being proposed and I suggest everyone do the same. This is all just a big 'money-grab' scheme like the rest of the bills that are ever proposed from NYS. Please just leave NY alone and stop trying to change things | ||
| Lisa,Towne | Complete electrification of the state is not economically feasible or realistic. I am against this proposal. A plan should be considered to reduce emissions that is both realistic, affordable for the average person, and achievable. Consider a mix of energy that includes natural gas and other renewables that already are reducing their emissions. | ||
| Kurt,Krumperman | Zero Waste Capital District | ||
| Susan,Dowd | This critical plan for our future cannot go forward without input from the native tribes of NYS. Inclusion of our native neighbors and friends is essential if our state is truly interested in fairness and proper stewardship. | ||
| Tim,Lemke | The climate changes every day! This is a bogus issue!! Years ago, they used to call it global warming. That did not fit the narrative (after many cold winters), so they changed the name to climate change. Also, back in the 1990's there were scientist that were caught changing data fraudulently to support the fantasy issue of global warming/climate change. | ||
| Miles,Hester | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Kelly,Colvin | Sysco | ||
| Robert,Goldberg | I support the work of the NYS Climate Action Council. Transitioning our state, nation and economy away from fossil fuels, and addressing the impact of fossil fuels and pollution on non-affluent and non-white communities are matters of utmost urgency for our well-being. This matter was brought to my attention by Kimlin Energy in Ulster County, who are advocating against the plans of the CAC. I resent the attempt to manipulate public opinion by those who stand to profit from it, and wish to call it to your attention. | ||
| Martin,Gugino | Witness against torture | We must stop burning anything to make electricity. All such plants must have decommission dates. Those dates should be this year. The Amish should be our models. Utility distribution companies should be required to provide current and past usage to local governments broken down to zip code level, so that local governments can measure the effect of their actions like weatherization. Indian tribes must be included in these programs since their lands are often sacrifice zones for oil or nuclear waste. They are the most committed to clean water air and land. | |
| Robert,Campbell | We are attempting to substitute all fossil fuels and meet demand growth at the same time by 2050. Applications that incur large energy losses in transformation should be minimised while efficiency gains should be prioritised. It takes over 55 kWh of electricity to make 1 kg of hydrogen through PEM electrolysis so any hydrogen mandates should be weighed against the possibility that more rapid decarbonisation of the electricity system could be slowed by a focus on H2. H2 blending into pipeline natural gas offers very limited benefits for a very high cost. H2 blends cost more to move and deliver less total energy per unit volume. Electrification of building heating/cooling is more efficient and incurs lower energy losses. 2) Credit markets are poor sources of information about long term decarbonisation costs. Our current energy paradigm aims for lower capital costs in exchange for variable fuel and operating costs. Much green energy has higher capital costs and (hoped for) low input costs. To amortise high capital costs investors need to understand long term carbon costs. Credit markets such as RINs, LCFS and the EU ETS reflect traders' perception of the relative ease of meeting short term compliance targets by accessing banked credits rather than the long term cost of decarbonisation. NY should consider the "contracts for differences" being studied in the EU to help underwrite longer term investments. The PANYNJ study on SAF (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/80716.pdf) underscores this point. High capital costs will be difficult to recover without price certainty making sustainable aviation fuel projects very difficult, particularly once HEFA-type feedstocks become constrained from the 2030s as SAF uptake grows. Early stage decarbonisation requires biofuels but competition for renewable diesel is intensifying. Therefore incentives to reduce liquids demand in applications that can be easily electrified need to be in place. | ||
| Ron,Vlaz | Self | When naturally occurring WATER VAPOR is included as a green house gas the ENTIRE CONCEPT of Climate change is BIG FAT LIE !! | |
| Gregory,Suter | This is such an important step in decarbonzing New York and helping reduce energy costs in this inflationary period. Thank you for your hard work on this legislation. | ||
| Regina,Myer | Downtown Brooklyn Partnership | ||
| Graeme,Birchall | I am the president of the Downtown Boathouse, which runs the largest free public kayaking program in the world from our boathouse at Pier 26 in Lower Manhattan. Since we began, more than half a million people have gone kayaking on New York Harbor with us. People do not do the planet any favors when they travel to a remote rain-forest for a holiday. Yet the Draft Scoping Plan has nothing to say about encouraging local outdoor recreation - especially in urban areas, and particularly in New York City. The Draft Scoping Plan assigns no economic, ecological, of social value to increased recreational use of New York Harbor by swimmers and human-powered boaters. It thus implies that those residents of New York City who want to engage in either activity on a hot summer day should leave the city. Such a policy is unfair, unhealthy, inefficient, and environmentally unsustainable. Manhattan Island is the most populated island in the world with no beach. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent cleaning up the harbor that surrounds the island. Billions of dollars have been spent building new waterfront parks on the same. Yet there is no beach, and no beach is planned. Meanwhile, the city is spending tens of millions of dollars to subsidize motorboat recreation in Manhattan. On a nice summer day there should be thousands of people safely paddling on New York Harbor. In a city of eight million people, this is not an unreasonable objective. Yet the waterfront that is being built today in New York City is not designed to safely allow this level of on-water activity. Inasmuch as the Draft Scoping Plan discusses tourism, it advocates for agritourism. The door-to-door carbon cost of such remote tourism is considerable. Tourism is not going away. The Scoping Plan should advocate for those types of outdoor recreation (e.g. local tourism and slow tourism) that have a much lower carbon footprint. | ||
| Nadine,Godwin | I am a New Yorker who is very concerned about our future, considering the climate changes that are occurring at speed, but I am pleased New York passed the CLCPA and hope that this state can be a model for others as well. When it comes to which approach to take to meet CLCPA goals, three scenerios appear in the plan. The plan characterized as the “strategic use of low-carbon fuels” is unacceptable. The other two are viable. To implement CLCPA, the scoping plan must clearly specify the level of reductions in GHG and other pollutants that each industry in responsible for and by when. Further, these mandates must be legally enforceable as regarding the obligations of both businesses and individuals. Similarly, the plan should be clear about the responsibilities of each of the state’s agencies involved in CLCPA implementation. Please include, in the plan, a process that ensures the CLCPA investment mandate will be achieved. To avoid false solutions, New York must establish, via legislation if need be, a way to fund reductions in GHG emissions and other pollutants — and to fund our transition, at last, to a renewable energy economy. Thank you. | ||
| Constance,Kurtz | How are seniors on a fixed income supposed to pay for the total conversion from gas to electricity called for in this plan? While I applaud your goals, there has to be a better way that realistically and fairly meets these targets. | ||
| Agnes,LaPorte | The proposed massive large solar projects will take away much needed farmland which is now being used for local food sources. This significant reduction will cause great economic and societal hardship for many years to come. When solar has outlived its use, the now fertile farmland will be useless. We owe it to future generation to THINK before we destroy their food sources. | ||
| John,Hagerty | None | I favor an approach including the Climate and Community Investment Act. A state wide tax on Carbon. Strong incentives for purchase of electric vehicles and heat pumps. Strong incentives for investments in solar, wind and battery storage. Review and encouragement for adding small safe new generation baseline nuclear power reactors throughout the state | |
| John,Hagerty | None | I favor an approach including the Climate and Community Investment Act. A state wide tax on Carbon. Strong incentives for purchase of electric vehicles and heat pumps. Strong incentives for investments in solar, wind and battery storage. Review and encouragement for adding small safe new generation baseline nuclear power reactors throughout the state | |
| Jaime,Reppert | Will solar and wind farms be subject to performance bonding when installed? Offshore wind new installation with no obligation to remove and recycle cables, mooring mounts, and tower structures plus the onshore distribution stations? Nuclear powered electricity generation has left legacy public health low level radioactive waste. Plans to support continuance of this practice must address disposal of existing and new radioactive waste. NY utility rate-payers pay an excise on electricity bills (per the NY PSC, at a 2016 request of Gov A Cuomo) used to make nuclear power feasible. Without our collective subsidy, nuclear power is not a cost-effective energy source. Are we expected to cover costs for these plants otherwise operating at a huge loss for the owners? With no receiving toxic dump to ship to, the plant operators are forced to store powerplant waste onsite. So, it seems that we are also subsidizing the stockpile of large quantities of radioactive materials on the powerplant sites – both the fuel in reactors and years’ worth of spent fuel waste - located directly on the Lake Ontario shoreline.All seven active nuclear power plants in NY and Ontario are located directly on the shores of Lake Ontario or very nearby.. Several of these nuclear plants are also located directly over areas of seismic activity with potential for earthquake-induced core damage. Exelon could re-invest, in SMRs for microgrids, or perhaps exit the energy business in New York State.stockpiles of radioactive waste and continued production of such waste without a safe disposal option creates a significant financial burden and potential environmental threat for Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River shorefront area residents and New York State, Quebec Province, and Ontario Province residents. Based on the half-life of radioactive waste, this negatively impacts tourism-based economic resources, quality of life, property values, wildlife, and unrepresented individuals in many generations yet to come | ||
| Gregory,Kulka | First of all, it is disconcerting that there is no entity on the Council that represents the interests of the business community and the average NY resident. While disconcerting, it does not come as a surprise, since this is so typical of NY state and emblematic of why business and residents are fleeing the state. The Council's own analysis (footnote 161) shows that GSHPs and ASHPs carry NO payback period (i.e. zero and negative operating cost savings, respectively) as replacements for a traditional natural gas boiler or furnace and air conditioner. While the investment is 2 to 4 times the investment for the traditional HVAC systems. This is an absolutely ludicrous situation, and should be rejected as a requirement out of hand, due to the incredibly horrible financials. There is no way that incentives will defray the entire excess cost, let alone the increased operating cost. (And why should incentives be used to incentivize an investment no one in their right mind would make? Wouldn't there be more effective uses for incentive funding?) From a personal perspective, the timing of such requirements and the lifecycle of my current (high-efficiency natural gas) boiler would mean that I would be hit with this high cost right about the time I would be retiring! Looks like I (as so many others) will be looking to retire to somewhere far outside of New York State! | ||
| Wendy,Mahaney | Set a target of 2030 to end combustion and landfilling of municipal organic waste, with timetables for phase-down. As the Integration Analysis for the Climate Action Council shows, 100% diversion of organic waste from landfills by 2030 will be necessary to meet the state's emissions reduction targets. To help reach this target: Strengthen the Food Donation & Food Scraps Recycling Law. Under current law, businesses and institutions that generate two tons of waste or more per week are required to donate the edible portion of their waste and recycle the rest if within 25 miles of an organics recycling facility. The two-ton threshold should be reduced to one ton by 2024 and a half ton by 2026. (Massachusetts has had a one-ton threshold in place for years, and is reducing it to a half ton in November 2022.) Broaden the law to apply to hospitals, nursing homes, and K-12 schools. Require a per/ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, as recommended by the Scoping Plan, while also expanding policies and programs to encourage backyard residential composting and on-site composting at institutions and large generators. Expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and successful models of organics collection programs, especially for multifamily and public housing. Require local solid waste management planning to incorporate food scraps recovery for food pantries and programs to feed the food insecure. The Municipal Waste Reduction and Recycling Program must be funded at a level adequate to support composting programs and recovery of food scraps. Develop a plan to support markets for compost and encouraged its use by farms as an alternative to synthetic fertilizers. Support the development of appropriately-scaled organic recycling facilities on farms, which could provide a revenue stream for farmers while encouraging the use of compost. | ||
| Michael,Doberstein | The plan to ban natural gas service and appliances for residential and water heating and for appliances is a disaster waiting to happen. As the Plan states on page 186, states " However, the 100x40 goal presents significant challenges that cannot currently be met by the deployment of these existing technologies. Current studies identify that even after full deployment of available clean energy technologies, there is a remaining need for 15 GW to 25 GW of electricity generation in 2040 to meet demand and maintain reliability, although that gap may change over time." National Grid has stated that in order for Western New York to switch completely to electricity would require an 4 fold increase from the current 4 GW to 15 GW. How will this needed increase in electricity be manufactured? The needed increase would require more than four additional Robert Moses type Hydroelectric type power plants to produce the required electricity, and there is not another waterfall equivalent to Niagara anywhere in the state. Solar/Wind has less than a 40% efficiency rating and Power Plants using fossil fuels and nuclear fuels are being decommissioned. This will lead to energy shortfalls and increased costs to consumers. The Climate Change Council estimate it will cost $20,000 to $50,00 on average to convert a single WNY home from natural gas to electricity. This equals out to $10 -$25 BILLION in costs to WNY alone, not counting the estimated annual increase of $650 in electric bills. Where is this money coming from? A better plan would be to use a mix of renewable energy alongside of natural gas which is more affordable and reliable. WNY does not need a financially burdensome Plan that will make the power grid unreliable. | ||
| Walter,Hang | |||
| Lacey,Smith | Pollinators need to be included in agricultural aspects. Selecting native plants will not only attract native pollinators to pollinate crops, it will also encourage beneficial insects to help reduce the need for insecticides. Using less insecticides will keep our water cleaner and our beneficial insects healthy. More farms would be able to go organic (or at least pesticide selective) if more pollinator and beneficial insect habitat was created. Pollinators need to be considered in forestry planning, too. Selecting native species that support large amount of pollinators (i.e., lepidoptera species) can support biodiversity and migratory birds that pass through the state. Selecting oaks, cherries, maples, birches, and willows can support hundreds of lepidoptera species. New York has limited pollinator habitat specialists/biologists to help farmers and landowners create these habitats. Having additional help and cost share programs would make this more accessible, as native seed mixes and trees/shrubs tend to be more expensive than non-native species. | ||
| Britni,Tait | It is a terrible idea to not allow retrofits beginning in 2030. The cost to NYS consumers is going to be immense and many many people are not going to be able to afford replacement equipment. How is it fair if my water heater or furnace goes that I need to change the equipment, electrical system etc. in my house. Who is going to pay for an upgraded electric service or electric panel because my current system can't handle it? What is the timeframe this work can even be completed in? Instead of a couple of days without hot water or heat it could be weeks. | ||
| Alisa,Nurminen | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. My name is Alisa Bielert, and I live in Albany, New York. I was born and raised in the Capital District and I recently purchased a house in the Town of Colonie. To adequately improve public transit availability and accessibility in the state there is a need for operating and capital costs to provide first mile/last mile connectivity; a greater number of destinations accessible by public transportation, walking, and biking; increased service frequency with more reliability and hours of operations; increased number of mobility options (e.g., micro-transit, micro-mobility); and high-quality amenities at public transportation facilities/stops. I am pleased to see the inclusion of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies for difficult-to-manage products and materials; however, the Final Scoping Plan needs more prescriptive EPR policy recommendations. EPR policies for plastic and paper packaging require manufacturers to standardize recycling labels and require a percentage of post-consumer content in products. Manufacturers should be required to follow standards that consider environmental justice impacts in hazardous waste disposal. The final plan should expand local-scale composting and recycling in equitably geographically distributed, well-run sites and facilities. This should include the conversion of some local transfer stations into well-run composting/sorting/processing sites. For greater waste reduction and local scale diversion we need an instituted municipal collection of organics from all businesses and all residences, including public housing, assisted living, etc. | ||
| WILLIAM,SCHULT | The concept of banning all natural gas IS FOOLISH. We cannot totally get rid of a natural resource that provides significant energy for homes and businesses. We need COMBINED sources of energy from all arenas: wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, electric. The idea of 100% ban of natural gas by 2024 is so ridiculous. Who is paying for all these homes and businesses to convert? Who and how is the electric grud getting built out in such an ambitiois timeline? | ||
| Diane,Viscio | The Scoping Plan should prohibit new fossil fuel plants and infrastructure build out. The Scoping Plan should end the practice of giving taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The Scoping Plan should prioritize solid waste reduction. | ||
| Kimberly,Moore | From what I have heard about electronic cars, the technology is still in its infancy. There is plenty of time for this to improve and for it to be more affordable for the general public. | ||
| Scott,Fanton | Changing to electric is what we all need to do given that the technology and social conditions support it. DO NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING, STAY OUT OF MY HOME | ||
| Sharon,Hartzell | Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. They are well informed about how to meet the energy needs of their people and NYS’ ambitious climate goals; their voices are critical. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. One Dish, One Spoon is a cultural and spiritual practice that means the land provides for all, and if some have an abundance of something, they share with others. This aligns completely with NYS’ vow for environmental justice for marginalized communities. Any exploitation and pollution of the natural resources of their Territories are also impacts to the cultural resources and health of the Haudenosaunee including non-Indigenous people, as we share the land with them. The omission of the Haudenosaunee not only reveals the inequality and injustice they endure, but continues to build on NYS’ tactics to keep the Haudenosaunee invisible and marginalized- culturally, spiritually, and economically. There are already many barriers Indigenous communities face in accessing and benefiting from the renewable energy transition. These barriers and concerns can only be addressed when robust, genuine, and dedicated state- to-Nation dialogue is conducted over time. | ||
| Alexander,Shapanka | Real Estate Board of New York | ||
| Cheryl,Henderson | I think your expectations exceed reality. People will be able to travel less. ( Statement from the plan) In rural areas there is no mass transit, walking at times is out of the question, one has to drive from farm to farm or field to field. The idea that there will be enough electricity generated by all of the various methods proposed does not seem to be probable. Real life reality does not seem to fit into the graft expectations. Statement from plan: you are actually going to consider and ask the the everyday consumer what they can afford, live with, desire...?? Putting this into an understandable level: very few people can afford to buy a new car, new appliances, belongings so that they fit into this plan on this time schedule. Demanding people change how they live, work travel, etc so rapidly will cause problems and stress for all. From the graphs, looks like the biggest use of energy is empty space in buildings. The biggest buildings usually house government offices. Down sizing the government is something we would all agree to and could allow for much smaller spaces. Demanding that people buy new products to fit into this plan will require more items being produced, which will increase the use of natural resources, more detrimental gasses, detrimental disposal of goods that do not fit the plan but are still highly usable and useful but cannot be used because they run on gas. Now that is WASTEFUL! | ||
| ELIZABETH,STEWART | I attended the virtual meeting of the CAC on 5/26 and would like to share the following thoughts. Regarding the question of an extension to the public commenting period, Mr Rodriguez's suggestion for a targeted outreach to communities is useful and valid if there is an intersection between those communities projected to be heavily affected by climate change policy changes and communities underrepresented during the public comments period. Whether there is a significant intersection cannot be determined without first, the comment period ending and driving predictably voluminous last-minute comments and second, an analysis of whether and to what degree those communities do intersect. Therefore, my suggestion is that once the comment period is closed there be an analysis of which communities will be most affected (if such an analysis hasn't already been conducted) and whether those communities were underrepresented in the public commenting period. If there is a significant intersection, then a targeted outreach could occur. A framework for targeted outreach to engage with specific communities should already be in the works. This framework could apply to combating misinformation campaigns by identifying toward which communities those campaigns are targeted. | ||
| Lisa,Baker | Living in Western New York we often have power outages in the winter time, due to the storms that affect us off of Lake Erie, often when when we are facing temperatures well below zero. Power may be out for several days. We have so many rural communities that rely on gas to heat, cook, etc. you can still prepare a meal if the electric is out. I can’t for the life of me understand why our right to cook using natural gas, or heat using natural gas is considering being taken away from us. Other states have done exactly opposite, stating they will never take away the right of its population to choose. Why are New Yorkers ok being told what type of heat they can have? There is no way our grid can handle this, I can’t even imagine the cost to do this. This is the perfect scenario of the Democratic law makers coming up with creative ways to control the people in this state and claim it’s good for the environment. Even though when the power goes out in winter, we will freeze up here because I’m sure gas powered generators which many people rely on up here in the winter will be outlawed as well. So there will literally be no back up system for all of us up state. Typical, thinking only of downstate where they don’t have the winters we do upstate and if they lose power for a few hours they can still stay cozy. Here, our water pipes will freeze and now we have a larger mess. This whole idea of converting to all electric is just another way to tax you more so we can pay for the infrastructure needed to try to support this. | ||
| timothy ,abati | I am disabled in ny i am 1000 dollars over allowed limit to receive a deduction in taxes and im stretching my income because of medical not covered 3 to 12k a year in worst years. The climate inetionave will force me out of my home and truly give me a reason to leave ny as im for climate but what your initiative will do is force my home to a heat pump at a expense of 20 to 30 k that I don't have I just bout a new hvac system to last a life time as being younger and disabled im trying to plan and survive in this extremely over taxed and socialist government in ny that allows illegals' immigrants and incentives to people that don't live here and there is not enough help for the middle low class that have worked to build ny. How do you intend to help the disabled? I would like to know set or imposed fines that will directly burden my income and impact my medical treatment. As a ny resident trying to survive it is unfair to me that I should be forced to make a change with a lower income I can not be forced to pay fort this radical change or pay for fines. I spent 5 to 10 k max on car who will pay for the ev I will be forced to drive. The disabled should be exempt from this forced change. look at what florida a republic run state does for there disabled ny should be ashamed . Sincerly Tim | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | The Draft Scoping Plan asserts that there will be benefits from the implementation of the Climate Act but provides no documentation to support that claim. These comments highlight the claims that must either be substantiated by analysis and documentation or removed from the final Scoping Plan. These comments include my personal analyses of the potential effect of the Climate Act on global warming and global emissions both as an example of the analysis necessary to make claims and as a cautionary tale. The fact is that any expectation that the Climate Act will have any detectable effect on the severity of current or future climate change is mis-placed because the expected impact on global warming is an immeasurable 0.01°C by the year 2100. If you cannot measure the change in temperature there is no way you can detect a change in the purported effects of that temperature change. In addition, when New York’s emissions are considered in the context of global emissions it is unreasonable to expect that other jurisdictions will be encouraged to implement similar restrictions. In the first place, New York’s emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions. At the same time, New York’s 2020 Gross State Product (GSP) ranks ninth if compared to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of countries in the world. That ranking was achieved in no small part because New York has had access to abundant, reliable, and affordable energy for many years. Expecting that countries without our wealth will be encouraged to develop costly zero-emissions energy resources is naïve and immoral. | |
| Jim,Bialasik | First off let me start by saying that I agree that climate change is a real problem. I also agree that wind and solar are a needed feature for a sustainable future. However I disagree with the rapid conversion to full electric for homes, transportation and businesses. I don't think our current electric grid is capable of that kind of rapid conversion. The infrastructure can be built up over time but not in the time frame you are calling for. What about older homes where the wiring is not suited to all electric? Our winters are harsh and long. We need a reliable heat source that can protect us in a severe cold winter. I have an older home where I have both electric and gas appliances. It is very efficient and affordable. However to switch over to all electric would be cost prohibitive. New builds I understand. But with older homes I think you will find that home owners will start to abandon their homes rather than put out the extremely expensive outlay for an whole home makeover of electric appliances. We have enough zombie homes already because people won't/can't pay their taxes and or mortgages. You really need to rethink this time frame. | ||
| A drew,Cappiello | 1. It shouldn't be necessary to download pdf files to read the the plan. 2. The plan is typical Gov't overreach. 3. The cost of living in New York State is already too high due to exorbitant taxes and fees. 4. What will be done with expired storage batteries from vehicles? Their contents are toxic, I'm not willing to have that stored let alone recycled near me. 5. I'm not able to see how this plan won't further damage our rural economy. We have a minimum 20 minute drive to get to any store or hospital. This plan will cause more people and businesses to leave the state, moving to places where the government is more conservative and less invasive. It takes some real gall to think you can legislate how we can heat our homes and what type of vehicles we can drive. What are people to do during the winter when the electricity is out due to a storm? My electrical service has been interrupted four times this year. I currently can put a pot of water on the gas stove while my wood stove comes up to temperature. If this plan is forced on me, i will start looking for a new state to live in. | ||
| Adina,Banayan | Latitude Compliance / Promont | My name is Adina Banayan- I am a Sustainability Manager and Jr Architect for Promont Construction+Development, and Latitude Compliance- which focuses on all LL97, energy legislation and retrofits for NYC. 1)NYS's carbon emissions have gone up since the closure of nuclear plants. As technologies have greatly improved over the years, I encourage the council to research the applicability of including Nuclear Energy as a energy source for NYS- a viable and safe- and perhaps the only- option for us to reasonably achieve our zeroemissions goals. 2)In my educational, volunteer, and work related experience- I have come to the conclusion that- if we do not consider carbon removal as part of the climate plan, humanity is in danger. It is known that even if we magically emitted zerocarbon emissions from this day on forward- we would still be affected by climate change disasters. The goal is to encourage innovative climate solutions through government-funded projects, incentives and research- WITHOUT losing focus of electrification or zero-carbon goals. They must be done in-conjunction with each other. 3)There are many buildings that will not or can not reuse their building- in which deconstruction must be implemented. Deconstruction methods include the reuse of building materials from demo waste for new construction. This addresses the embodied carbon section of the plan, as well as building waste- as 46% of landfill waste is from construction and demo waste. Adding the concept of decomposable materials and bins, eliminating single-use plastic, and the proper recycling of demo waste. 4)Companies to display their operating and embodied carbon as well as their company location/headquarters, to bring awareness and inspire change. 5)An incentive to be explored for building owners/landowners of vacant, unused or infill territory to be used as temporary "rented" agricultural or green spaces for the community to naturally support co2 removal and to reduce heat island effect. Thanks! | |
| Timothy,Rzeznik | The plan in its current measure affects every resident in NYS, and for the majority, unfairly. The aggressive timeline that implements these options, without exception will economically affect the most vulnerable of NYS residents, the homeowners. I certainly cannot afford or support the economic hardship of redesigning my home to accommodate this plan. Forget that NYS is the only world entity (not just state) that intends to do this but the general benefits of the plan, while imposing crushing hardships is not prudent or possibly not well thought out. I do not see where the group evaluates the potentials and realistically defines the feasibility of the aggressive implementation. My opinion is that this plan is a draconian attempt to implement an over the top climate strategy that will be disastrous for NYS. Consistent brownouts, rolling blackouts and energy cost increases will be our future. I strongly urge voting down this plan and re-thinking the forward energy strategy. It must be doable and affordable for all New Yorkers. | ||
| Frank,Williams | The plan is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons including: 1) Cost to tax payers and NY economy. We are competing with 49 other states (not to mention China) to attract industry and talented employees. The proposals will make NY less attractive to employees and industry. 2) Curtailing natural gas is scientifically unsound. Methane is the least carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels and far cheaper than wind and solar. Studies at Cornell demonstrate it is the preferred interim fuel while we develop alternatives. 3) The plan will have virtually no measurable effect on global CO2 levels while self-hobbling NY State. 4) Even the most optimistic climate models predict only a small reduction in average global temperatures if massive curtailment of CO2 generation were actually implemented. 5) Our financial resources would be better spent on armoring coastal cities and engineering resiliency. | ||
| Cory,Baker | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Keith,Ormsby | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Holly,Tyler | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. My family lives in NY state and pay 10 times more than we do for heating oil and it’s dangerous and toxic!! Give me a break | ||
| Jamie,Rodriguez | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. Everyone should have the ability to choose how they want to power and heat their homes. | ||
| Eddie,Weatherford | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Chandler,Castle | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Jason,Hust | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| James,Eaves | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Ethan,Smithson | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Rob,Martin | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Mike,Musslewhite | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Keith,Venable | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. I can’t believe that you’re trying to ban clean burning natural gas. Do you realize that the majority of electricity is produced by natural gas? Are you really going to force chefs to start cooking your favorite meals on an “electric” stove? | ||
| Jonathan,Duhon | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Cody,Daniel | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Trevor,Krauss | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Austin,Keshner | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Eddie,Hughes | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| James,Richert | I'm in favor of moving away from fossil fuels but using an all-of-the-above approach on the way. This would minimize power shortages and blackouts, cost to residents, population loss, and overall business disincentive. I am apposed to the plan as written. Banning fossil fuels at the proposed schedule is unrealistic if not unachievable and will certainly be unnecessarily costly to the middle class residents of NYS. | ||
| Lauren,shaw | NYS is unprepared to "electrify" everything. The current electrical grid cannot support current demand, even with backup of natural gas resources. There is no way this will be remediated before 2024. Expecting NYS tax payers to cover the cost of this upgrade within 2 years is impossible. We have a backup gas generator that is needed and used due to insufficiency and failures of the current grid. We already have many energy efficient appliances, including a flash fired hot water heat system that runs on natural gas. It is only 4 years old, with a lifetime expectancy of 20 years. It was expensive, how will we be reimbursed if this is to be made obsolete? Our home is already seviced by solar energy, but it does not include cost or demand required for heating. Who will cover the cost(s) of making this change? The objective of converting to carbon neutral energy is good, but it cannot be accomplished with a sweeping law that does not address consumer cost and insufficiencies to utility service. First, fix the infrastructure expected to support the plan. Second, provide a viable/affordable path for consumers to convert. Last, establish a timeline that can accommodate 1 and 2. Anything else is just ignorant politics. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | The scoping plan claims that “The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $90 billion”. In my verbal comments at the Syracuse Climate Act public hearing I said that statement is inaccurate and misleading. This comment explains why that the Draft Scoping Plan must address this issue and makes recommendations for changes to language to clarify the caveats associated with the claim. These comments show that the trick used to deceive the public into hearing that benefits out-weigh costs excludes legitimate Climate Act costs by mis-categorizing initiatives such as the 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate as part of the business-as-usual Reference case. In addition, the Plan uses incorrect guidance to inflate the societal benefits of avoided emissions. The final Scoping Plan should describe all the control measures, provide the assumptions used for the strategies, and list the expected costs and expected emission reduction for each measure for the Reference Case, the Advisory Panel scenario and the three mitigation scenarios so the public can decide for themselves which costs associated with “already implemented” program are appropriate. | |
| Joanne,Kavich | First, I have to say how disappointed I am in the current and most previous leadership in NYS. When our state has sufficient natural resources to keep costs down for consumers, we have leadership that doesn't care about the "little guy". Rather, they are kowtowing to special interest groups at the detriment of the people they purport to represent. Although, I understand the need to find cleaner power sources, trying to achieve it in such a short period of time, without looking at the pace with which this can be truly accomplished is extremely short-sighted. As can be seen at the Federal level at the current time, converting to all electric in a short time is having disastrous effects on all industries. We do not have the infrastructure for all electric vehicles, nor the wherewithal for certain vehicles, trucks, and motors to be all electric because the batteries would be cost-prohibitive. Also, as was seen in the 1970's, during the last energy crisis, electric costs were much higher than natural gas. As coal plants and nuclear facilities are closed, nothing is taking their places at the rate that these plants are closing. Where do you think all the electric is going to come from? As someone that has cooked on both an electric and gas stove, natural gas is far superior to electric. It is also more efficient to heat my house with natural gas. I also see this as another way for the State to lose more population and businesses, not to mention that new businesses will not move here if they have to heat their buildings with only electric. I am very against this plan at this time. For this proposal, and other policies heading in the wrong direction for the state, my husband and I are seriously considering moving out. | ||
| David,Montante | The Electrical Grid in NY state does not have the ability to support the plan as the politicians have stated. To deny residents of the state of NY proper scientific studies and a thought out plan will end with disastrous consequences. We as New Yorkers are over taxed and surcharged continuously, enough is enough. The shipping plan by Former Governor Cuomo destroyed millions of dollars of Lake Ontario shoreline property that the taxpayers money paid to restore. This was caused due to lack of proper studies and a knee jerk actions by government. The nursing home disaster caused by former Governor Cuomo is another example of not thinking things through. NY states Climate leader ship is out of touch with facts about electricity in New York. The plan will cause loss of business, hardship on home owners, and industry, causing increases in costs of everything. | ||
| Steven,Kulig | I live in Western New York and I’m concerned with the direction the state is going in with regards to electrifying everything. We depend on clean natural gas for our power generation, heating. cooking, transportation, heating pools and spas. I used to work in a coal fired power plant in Jamestown which is now powered by natural gas. We also depend on hydro power for part of our energy needs. The idea that you can force people people with marginal or fixed income to convert to total electric is abhorrent! Also the infrastructure is totally insufficient to achieve this goal. Solar and wind power is unreliable and can’t be counted on. Just think of Texas where cold weather crippled their wind mills and caused part of the power grid to collapse. What’s going to happen here will certainly be worse. Please reconsider the direction we’re headed before it’s too late! | ||
| Bruce ,Beckert | We have addressed environmental concerns for decades with great success. This energy policy is part of the national radical democrat agenda to take this great country down. As long as Democrats are in control this is the type of agendas we are going to face. Affordability and availability of our energy and food are being attacked and if successful we the people will suffer. May God Bless our great country!! | ||
| Anthony,OGeen | I believe this is an extreme burden on the States economy and it's residence. People are leaving the state in large numbers to avoid these type of policies and find more freedoms and more opportunity, leaving those who are left to shoulder the bill. The state has already burdened people beyond what they will accept and those who are most productive and have the most means will further leave and cause the state to hav policies that will no longer be sustainable. I too will eventually look to leave if this type of policy is implemented as stated. | ||
| Robert,Allen | Concerned Citizen | Stop this self destructive madness and use some rational thought in your legislative agenda. NYS residents will be crushed by this foolhardy attempt at changing our climate which has no basis in fact. If enacted it cause a mass exodus out of New York because taxpayers can no longer afford these illogical mandates. Wake up and remember you represent all of New York not just a fringe group of irrational climate activists. | |
| Nicole,Drespel | |||
| Sandra,Ebert | This is a letter I submitted to the Batavia Daily News on 5/27/22. To the Editor: Re: “Confer: “Now’s your chance to comment on the Climate Act,” May 26 Bob Confer has the right idea. We the people of this state should make our opinions about proposed climate actions known. But he’s being a little disingenuous. We’re not commenting on the Climate Act. That’s law, with its zero emissions and renewable energy goals baked in. What we now have is the chance to comment on how we get there. I believe we can only take the boldest path. We’re not going to reduce gas emissions if we keep burning gas. That means electric construction and gradual building retrofitting, the replacement over time of our gas appliances, like dryers, with electric ones. We must have electric buses, trucks and cars, and investment in charging infrastructure. Further, we can’t delay large-scale solar and wind projects, because gas plants need to be retired. We certainly can’t open new gas plants or build new pipelines. Those actions would be heartbreakingly retrograde, as we try to meet our climate challenge. Many people believe the technology is not ready to take these steps. That’s not true. They believe jobs will be lost. Unions are beginning to reconsider that concern. The Climate Act forced us to be forward-thinking. Now we must be forward-doing as well, taking the actions that will get us to a clean, renewable future. | ||
| Kevin,Bogle | NYC Parks | Urban and rural landscapes are highly valued by inhabitants and are essential to just transition and net-zero goals. These shared parks and plazas provide spaces necessary for human life to flourish—areas for play, food stability, leisure, and social connections. When carefully designed, they can also contribute to healing damaged ecosystems and directly mitigate local effects of climate change, including flooding and extreme heat. Designed landscapes must be included in the final scoping plan to actualize its full potential. The draft scoping plan fails to address the existence of the landscape architecture that will have to be conceptualized, designed, constructed, and managed throughout New York. If such policy neglects to propose ecologically, racially, and socially equitable measures, future projects will perpetuate a harmful status quo of landscape as extraneous, instead of essential, to reaching our net-zero goals. Landscape and its living infrastructures are fundamental to dignified, climate-responsive development. Living infrastructures, like bioswales, floodable ball fields, strategically planted food trees, and others provide innumerable ecosystem services and co-benefits like biofiltration, flood mitigation, greenspace creation, air quality improvement, cooling shade in summer and access to sunlight in winter, and improved well-being. Collectively, these designed landscapes weave together structural and programming functionalities of water, food, energy, transit, and public health and safety in outdoor public spaces. Through the inclusion of landscape architecture, the final scoping plan can lead to the create climate-resilient landscapes for public use; harbor and support indigenous flora, migratory species, and pollinators; conserve and replenish freshwater; protect and restore soils; generate food; provide for basic human needs of play and social connection; and employ strategies to manage impacts to climate, hydrologic cycles, and nutrient flows. | |
| Kelly,Santora | D.V. Brown & Associates, Inc. | Please see attached. | has attachment |
| Steven ,Cordella | To Whom it May Concern; My name is Steven Cordella. I’ve lived on Long Island for 31 years. I am writing to you today to express concern for the draft scoping plan put together by the climate action council. I agree with and fully support the fact that something must be done to help limit the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced due to everyday living. I’m very concerned however, that by taking an all or nothing approach to electrify buildings and eliminating other energy choices puts us in a vulnerable position. There have been too many instances where there was were power outages whether due to blackouts caused by extreme heat or hurricanes that struck our island to rely on electricity alone as a single source of energy. I do think renewables such as wind and Solar are critical to the transition but, the sun is not always shining and the wind is not always blowing. All existing forms of energy should be given the opportunity to decarbonize. For example, National Grid has made an announcement that they plan to be fossil fuel free by the year 2050, if not sooner. It would be irresponsible to eliminate the existing natural gas infrastructure on Long Island because it is able to supply such large, consistent, reliable clean energy to hundreds of thousands residences and businesses. As a resident, I have many unanswered questions because NY already has one of the highest electricity costs in the nation. What is the cost to make the transition? What will the electric rate jump to? What will be the average increase on the ratepayer? Where is the money coming from to fund the building of the infrastructure? I think there are so many unanswered questions that many people have and this draft scoping plan needs to be extended. I believe we, as residents, need clear, transparent communication from the state regarding any and all proposals and be made aware of the changes that are being suggested by the climate action council before we can make an e | ||
| Steve,Powers | Although I've heard Commissioner Seggos state that the plan will not ban firewood burning as a residential heat source, there are sections that mention that firewood needs to be phased out. As a resident of a rural Upstate community where alternative energy options are expensive and limited, I want to voice my concerns that firewood burning as a fuel source should not be prohibited unless the state can subsidize heat pumps or solar panels enough so that most residents can afford them. Thank you. | ||
| Mary,Sprayregen | Opower/Oracle | Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this comprehensive and bold plan. You will find Opower's comments attached here. Best, Mary Sprayregen Opower/Oracle | has attachment |
| Kristin,Armstrong | The plan to eliminate natural gas as an energy source in a state as cold as NY is outrageous. It's affordable and durable through cold winters. Heat pumps are not sufficient for this climate. And much of NYS is rural. When power outages occur, the power might not come back on for days. Think of the loss of heat and food in refrigerators. It's unconscionable to punish most of the state for a NYC vanity project. And what of the trucks and agricultural equipment that make this state run? They can't just be plugged in. And are you willing to mine for minerals and deal with the toxic waste of battery banks? Let the market drive these things in the future as the technology improves. To turn off people's gas stoves, furnaces, generators and engines is dangerous and unnecessary. | ||
| Allen,Blair | Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our GHG emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to LMI households in addition to making distributions to DAC’s as required by the plan, as well as to GHG reduction measures. Any carbon pricing or cap-and-invest program must be designed to eliminate co-pollutants in existing emission hotspots and to prevent the formation of new pollution hotspots, particularly in DACs. For Cap and Invest programs, I support investment in GHG reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits and I support prioritization of DAC’s for impact of GHG reductions. In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. Leakage of businesses must be monitored to ensure that the net emissions reductions are as high as possible. | ||
| Allen,Blair | NY farmers provide valuable ecological services and play an essential role in local food systems and the economy. But agricultural production is a significant emission source in the Genesee-Finger Lakes. Meeting CLCPA goals requires investment to make climate-friendly knowledge, technologies, and funding more widely available. Sustainable practices must be supported and incentivized, including reduced tillage, crop rotation, cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management to minimize fertilizers and pesticides. Incentivize organic farming and agroecological principles, e.g., rotational grazing and agroforestry. Fund transformative practices that work upstream of manure storage, and direct Climate Resilient Farming funds towards reducing enteric and manure sources of emissions. Make Climate Resilient Farming funds available to smaller operations. Resources, such as peer-to-peer farmer education, about the technological and economic aspects of such a transition are needed. Reform state policies and programs to promote institutional procurement strategies that provide access to local markets for farmers using soil health and GHG management practices. Payment for ecosystem services programs can incentivize farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices. Ensure continued farmland protection and equitable access to farmland for beginning farmers, women, and BIPOC farmers. Support further R&D into alternative feed measures and support the collection of locally relevant data on the GHG impacts of farming and the potential for carbon sequestration. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan. Prohibit logging for carbon sequestration purposes. Do not consider logging for carbon sequestration without proven life cycle analysis that use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. Forbid use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. | ||
| David,Twichell | This plan will do nothing more than destroy any energy independence we now have. Wind and solar are not reliable energy sources. Coal and gas are! Climate change is always occurring, and we cannot change that fact. Following this "climate act" agenda will guarantee our future position as a third-world country, while China and Russia continue to prosper using reliable energy sources. | ||
| S REBECCA,STORCH | To whom it may concern: ?I am writing as a homeowner in strong support of the All-Electric Building Act. Contractors are coming to my house the week of July 18 to replace my oil boiler and window and through-the-wall air conditioners with air source heat pumps. I can’t wait. Making my home sustainable has been a priority for me since buying it in 2016; I started a month after moving in by getting rooftop solar panels, and I reserved a Tesla Model 3 to replace my old Subaru in the driveway. (I tried to get battery storage so I wouldn’t need a fossil-fuel generator for power outages, but alas, we’ll have to change the fire code in NYC to allow that!) The solar panels worked out well; we have seen significant savings on our electric bills. But the big goal (for which we did not have the funds) was to replace the 1970 model oil boiler and big ugly oil tank in the basement with something more effective and efficient. I thought that meant gas heat, until a friend from the Tesla Owners Club of New York State shared with me some information about her air-source heat pump system and how Heat/Cool Smart Brooklyn helped her with NYS grants/loans for the project. The more I read, the more I knew this was the thing to do. Better insulation, better hot water heating, more efficient and controllable air conditioning, no more huge oil bills, no worries about indoor air pollution from natural gas, not to mention a more livable planet for my children, what’s not to like! New York should be leading on this issue, shouting from the rooftops that this is possible, and, indeed, necessary if we are to prevent climate catastrophe. Sincerely, Sara Rebecca Storch 49-36 167 St Fresh Meadows NY 11365 917-495-5283 | ||
| Gary,Nelson | The failure of the plan has already been demonstrated: NY legislature decided to give a "tax holiday" on the gas tax. This is exact ly the wrong direction. The fleet of gas guzzling, polluting and dangerous vehicle has grown exponentially since 2008. Gas is too cheap and NY did nothing. There is a failure to identify then correct the problem. As an income-equity measure, we need more redistribution. For transport and environmental justice, we need more transit and transit-oriented development. I see nothing at the NY level that is doing anything adequately on these issues. We should have declared that more of the gas tax would go to transit. I have promoted a proposal to use existing track to restore passenger rail between Troy, Albany and Schenectady 9pdf of brochure attached). There has been no regional action on that. Troy is proposing to strip the last waterfront woods for development at the extreme north end far from the center and its transit access. No one seems to see the problem of that. We need a tax structure that encourages and funds TOD, and we are going backwards on that. We need to correct the problems that are political before there will be any progress. | has attachment | |
| Shari,Joy | To whom it may concern, In eighth grade most of us learned about earth science. Cause and effect. Much of that seems to have been forgotten-or ignored purposefully for monetary gain. In my area (Genesee county especially and Wyoming county) and some surrounding counties woodlands and hedgerows have been ripped out by conglomerate farmers. Each year they DESTROY more and more land. Indiscriminate logging is another issue. Hardwoods take a very long time to re-grow. By the time we wise up the issue will be much more severe and difficult to solve because of how long it takes to regrow hardwoods. Look throughout the woodlands that are left, most trees are small, some midsized in girth. There are NO large, older trees. Trees are life! They provide shelter for animals, they CLEAN OUR AIR, and produce oxygen, help with erosion. They are a MAJOR component in climate control. Yet we are allowing them to be destroyed en masse. I predict if this continues our soil will dry, lose nutrients. Then these same conglomerates will use large machinery to suck water from streams, etc causing MORE issues with the water tables. They will need to add more nutrients adding to run off. Hedge rows and woodland areas create windbreak so land doesn’t dry out. They provide shelter for animals. The next complaint will be deer are eating crops more often. More car/animal accidents. More hazardous road conditions in winter due to no wind break. Not to mention climate. Trees HELP OUR CLIMATE! The thing we CLAIM to be so concerned about—-yet we allow the destruction of natural resources like trees. I guess we are only concerned when we make money at it. PLEASE STOP this destruction NOW! An entire ecosystem is being uprooted-demolished. Bees, deer, birds, Fox etc all rely, as do HUMANS, on wooded areas. Where on earth do you think animals, bugs, etc will go ??? What will happen to those species and others if this continues? What will happen to US? S Joy. | ||
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | I recommend that the State make low-interest loans available to cover costs of significant emissions reductions for residential homes. Furthermore, it would be helpful if the loan obligation were transferable to a new owner if the property is sold. For example, someone thinking of moving in the next 5 - 10 years will not have much motivation to replace a gas furnace with cold-climate air source heat pumps or ground source heat pumps and install solar panels on the roof. A transferable long-term low-interest loan applied to a significant portion of the cost of upgrading insulation, retrofitting the home with a heat pump, and installing solar panels would lower the barrier to making the transition and would encourage those people interested in making a difference before 2030. As there are benefits to making the changes in terms of home air quality and utilities bills, the benefits and the remaining loan obligation could be passed along with the sale of the house. The more we can get people to transition before a deadline such as 2030, the more smoothly decarbonization can progress. | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | The letter below was submitted to the Batavia Daily News on May 26, 2022: If you don’t want to pay high gasoline prices, drive an electric car, and I say that quite sincerely as a new owner of an EV. EV batteries offer enormous range, now. As well as having a cheap fuel source, the cars are cheap to maintain. Homeowners can readily charge their cars from their driveways. And you don’t have to buy a fancy Tesla. You can get a Ford truck, or any number of other makes and models. Since transportation accounts for nearly one third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, state incentives should all favor the EV driver. Governor Hochul has already announced a $1 billion investment in charging infrastructure and efforts to bring EV ownership to a broader range of people. The new climate scoping plan must remove current barriers against EV sales—limited sales outlets by new players—to speed the transition away from gas and diesel vehicles. | |
| Wyatt,Goodwin | Baruch College MPA | ||
| David ,Gibson | Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve | Comments to: the New York State Climate Action Council From: Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve Re. Comments on Climate Scoping Plan Date: May 23, 2022 On behalf of the nonprofit advocate Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve, we are pleased to submit these comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. Your visionary scope extending to specific strategies that reach Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals for buildings, transportation and electrical sectors is impressive. The 300-page document marshals and centralizes a vast amount of information and lists many vitally important individual sector strategies. Analysis is Deficient: However, the sheer amount of information presented tends to make the Draft Scoping Plan encyclopedic rather than analytic. The complexity and size of New York make it a daunting challenge to integrate strategies. Integration may in fact be the greatest challenge in the State’s Climate Action Scoping Plan, and it must be given a stronger emphasis. The Draft Transportation strategies, for example, recognize the symbiosis between land use and transportation and that local governments make land use decisions (page 110), yet there are no specific strategies to ensure local land use decisions support State or regional transportation efforts. It is not enough to merely encourage Smart Growth land use practices. A climate change-sensitive land use policy would mandate high density development at mass transit hubs while clustering development at low densities in exurban areas. Such patterns both conserve open space and decrease VMT’s. The Draft Scoping Plan must address how to achieve integration between the Transportation and Land Use Strategies. Land Use Strategies are Merely Aspirational: The draft states in Chapter 19, page 110, that a “broader set of smart growth strategies and recommendations are contained within Chapter 19.” Here again, the document strives to be encyclopedic in breadth rather than analytic and | |
| James,Johnson | Steuben County IDA | Please see the attached letter for comments. Thank you. | has attachment |
| David,Thompson | Efficiency should be used to mitigate CO2 emissions before mandating natural gas elimination. There is much than can be done through insulation and equipment efficiency. The ability of the electrical grid to handle massive increases in power consumption from electrification is questionable and the ability to strengthen the grid in the frame required seems unlikely. Without natural gas heat, loss of power incidents become major disasters! (reference Texas) Have you really understood the poor efficiency of heat pumps in colder climates? (Going from 10F to 68F uses dramatically more power than going from 40F to 68F; the curve is not linear.) Have the true costs of retrofitting a building with a boiler to electric really been understood? Boiling water with electricity seems foolish. Similarly heating water for home use with electricity is slow and a poor use of energy. Chef's will revolt if forced to use electric stoves instead of gas. If New York acts and other states do not will industry and jobs be driven away. | ||
| Allen,Blair | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | ||
| Allen,Blair | I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | ||
| Richard,Berkley | Public Utility Law Project - Albany, NY | ||
| Alice ,Gunter | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Michael,Joyce | I oppose all intended actions. | ||
| Jennifer,Queenan | Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. They are well informed about how to meet the energy needs of their people and NYS’ ambitious climate goals; their voices are critical. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. I recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as sovereign Nations with political and cultural agency and believe they must be included in this law. | ||
| Steve,Tucker | Please be open minded and check out important information/ facts at renewablepropanegas.com. This and other biofuels need to be part of the plan. As they say “don’t put all your eggs in one basket”. | ||
| Lisa,Capone | Completely eliminating Gas for cooking and heating is a big mistake and will financially harm many New Yorkers. To rely solely on electricity in a state this large with 9 months of cold weather is irresponsible. Many northern New Yorkers rely on generator power during outages to run oxygen, nebulizers and other life saving apparatus. To remove supplying gas to them is a death sentence. I also cannot see the feasibility for struggling New Yorkers to afford to change out their current appliances. Regardless of the time to usher in this new plan, many New Yorkers will be adversely affected financially. I also wish to point out that this creates a further monopoly for National Grid. This strips citizens from making a choice and puts them in an unsafe path for exorbitant fees with no control over the situation. I honestly am concerned that in an effort to save money, financially struggling citizens will freeze to death in the winter months. There will be a strain on the states electrical grid that creates a very precarious scenario for those who would then be solely dependent on electricity. Let us also consider the frequency and severity of storms we are facing, not just nationwide but in NY state alone. New York state has historically experienced storms all year round resulting in days to week long power outages. With the 2022 NOAA forecast for a greater than average hurricane season and that trend continuing each year how can you possibly expect people to rely solely on electricity? While I agree our carbon footprint must be reduced, it cannot be at the expense of New Yorkers financial lives, health and safety. Please do not take the freedom of choice away from New Yorkers. New Yorkers are suffering enough. Find other solutions that will not harm the majority of citizens who struggle to buy food, stay warm and survive. | ||
| Elissa,Garay | ET001669022690 | Hello, I am writing to request more residential subsidies for the transition from oil heat to heat pumps. My family has been waiting more than three years to make the transition, but the upfront costs of installing heat pumps are prohibitive for lower to middle income families. Thank you. Best, Elissa Garay | |
| Allen,Blair | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | ||
| Noah,Parra | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Corey,Vaughn | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Michael,Bullock | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Justin,Pipher | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Nicholas,Atkin | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Blake,Granados | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Brian,Reynolds | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Tony,Perez | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Kevin,Reyes | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Christopher,Marteney | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Richard,Thompson | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. You should let the people choose not a council that is appointed by officials who already want to stop. Our electric grid is no where near ready for this. | ||
| Greg,Guidry | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Ashley,Tieken | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jeff,Ford | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Benjamin,Jospeh Hughes | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. This would be a wrong move. | ||
| Ryan,Starr | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| James,Fruge | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Jacob,Gary | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Darryl,Gulvas | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Clay,Clarkson | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Angela,Schettine | Banning gas will strain the electric grid, potentially causing blackouts in the most fragile times of the year - including the height of winter. As witnessed in Texas in 2021, an electric blackout during winter can have catastrophic consequences putting the most vulnerable populations as risk. Enacting this policy of a gas ban is short-sided and hasty - in the name of public safety and health. I would encourage you to assess the probabilities of health and safety risks from major grid failures and blackouts during peak winter months - knowing full well how cold it gets in New York during this time year. | ||
| Dale,Mullen | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Kevin,Parker | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Glyn,Sonnier | New York is already one of the most expensive places in the world to live and have a family. Banning gas will deplete an option for home and business owners to heat their homes with an affordable, reliable option. Combining that with rapid inflationary pressures everywhere, this will hurt the people who need help the most - people living paycheck to paycheck. Banning gas will have a net increase in costs for home and business owners in New York State when they can least afford it. Please consider weighing the net negative impact this will have on the families and small businesses in New York who are counting on you to protect them. | ||
| Shawn,McFarlane | For various reasons consumers should be able to choose how they want to power/heat their homes and businesses. Whether it cost savings, reliability (so, grid blackouts), or just a general preference to a gas stove over an electric one - the state of New York should not be deciding how to attain a basic need everyone has. Banning a safe, reliable option of heat/power like natural gas is a mistake and an overstep by New York. Those who want to have all electric homes and office buildings already have that choice, and can make that choice whenever they wish. The mandating any type of regulations in this matter is completely unnecessary, costly to taxpayers and will most certainly put public safety and health in jeopardy with an ill equipped electrical grid becoming more strained. Give New Yorkers the right to choose - and let individual choice be an option for New York. | ||
| Peter,Schaber | Although moving away from fossil fuels in general, is something that needs to be done (limited supply, environmental issues, etc.) a more gradual approach will benefit all residence of New York State without the extreme disruption the present proposal would in all likely-hood cause (economic, etc.). The problem with moving away from natural gas in particular is what replaces it, electricity??? To date, most electricity produced in this country, and around the world, still comes form the burning of coal. A much "dirty" fossil fuel producing almost twice as much CO2 per gram burned as natural gas. Renewables??? None are really ready to replace the energy demand currently served by natural gas. No gasoline powered automobile sales by 2035? It is highly doubtful that full electric powered automobiles will drop in price by that target date to make them affordable to middle class, much less economically challenged, citizens of New York. (Does the state plan to subsidize their purchase, and if so at what level?) The proposal, although forward thinking in general, has a time table that is far too ambitious making it impractical at best, and very likely resulting in sever economic consequences for most New Yorkers, not to mention the unintended consequences that will surely arise moving so quickly. | ||
| Cheyenne,Stewart | Please see attached letter. | has attachment | |
| Allen,Blair | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | ||
| Emma,Thurau | Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. They are well informed about how to meet the energy needs of their people and NYS’ ambitious climate goals; their voices are critical. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. One Dish, One Spoon is a cultural and spiritual practice that means the land provides for all, and if some have an abundance of something, they share with others. This aligns completely with NYS’ vow for environmental justice for marginalized communities. Any exploitation and pollution of the natural resources of their Territories are also impacts to the cultural resources and health of the Haudenosaunee including non-Indigenous people, as we share the land with them. The omission of the Haudenosaunee not only reveals the inequality and injustice they endure, but continues to build on NYS’ tactics to keep the Haudenosaunee invisible and marginalized- culturally, spiritually, and economically. There are already many barriers Indigenous communities face in accessing and benefiting from the renewable energy transition. These barriers and concerns can only be addressed when robust, genuine, and dedicated state- to-Nation dialogue is conducted over time. Please participate in influencing the energy and climate future by telling NYS that you recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as sovereign Nations with politica | ||
| suprina,troche | We need to do everything we can to move our NYS climate law forward in a timely way. Its outrageous that we are not all jumping on correcting decades of environmental injustice, that includes racism and classism. Where is our empathy for each other, the only way we will survive is by all working together towards equality for all and a love and respect for Mother Earth. | ||
| Laurie,Aron | Letter submitted to the New York Daily News 5/25/2022 To the Editor: What Voicer Bob Cavaliere does not seem to be aware of is that vast dams for hydropower are terrible for the environment, flooding old growth forests and releasing tons of sequestered carbon dioxide. Further, flooded vegetation releases toxic methyl mercury. Thank you everybody who has installed a solar roof and is reaping the financial benefits. The greatest impact on our green future will be the expansion of large-scale wind and solar projects, including the nine megawatts of offshore wind coming to New York. The new climate scoping plan must make sure these large-scale projects don’t lag in implementation. Our climate is running out of time. Laurie Joan Aron 680 W. 204th Street, Apt. 5A New York, N.Y. 10034 917 597 5563 | ||
| dan,haas | Friends of Columbia Solar | As co-chair of Friends of Columbia Solar, a group organized to support the Shepherd's Run solar project in Copake, I believe it's critical that the draft scoping plan bolster the 94C regulations which are needed to move renewables projects forward. These regulations need to be augmented by a process that better incorporates community input, so that renewable energy can be built in a spirit of compromise and consensus, rather than the divisiveness that too often characterizes the roll-out of these projects. But they must be built, and soon, as well as the infrastructure necessary to support a transition to clean electric power. | |
| Erin ,Mysogland | |||
| Patricia,Henighan | Town of Montgomery Conservation A dvisory Council | This is the text of a letter to the editor I submitted on May 23 to the Times Herald-Record, Newburgh, NY. All-Electric Building Act Must Pass Dear Editor. Time is running out for the Assembly to bring the All-Electric Building Act, A,8431-B to a vote. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, we are counting on you to realize that delay now will put New York behind as a Climate leader. This bill represents an important step forward to realizing the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).Moreover, this bill will have substantial health benefits from improved air quality as well as providing 100,000 new jobs in energy-efficient construction and clean heating and cooling by 2030.The Climate Action Council in its draft scoping plan urges that all-electric state codes be adopted on an accelerated time frame. In the May 12 hearing, New Yorkers from many walks of life urged that the Assembly pass this bill to ensure a more hopeful, fossil-free future before the legislature adjourns on June 2nd. Speaker Heastie, please listen to your constituents and do the right thing for this state. | |
| Elizabeth,Strum | Thank you for the tremendous work that’s gone into the impressive Draft Scoping Plan. I haven’t felt hopeful about real political action until now. I write with regard to eliminating emissions from buildings. It seems only sensible to require all new building starts between 2024 and 2027 to include green energy systems, not fossil fuels Why go to the expense of retrofitting new homes when they could be built sustainably to begin with? My husband and I have a 1915 house and have just started the process of insulating and retrofitting to get off fossil fuels. It must be done! I support the Draft Scoping Plan’s ideas for a managed and equitable transition to clean heating and cooling systems making it affordable for low- and moderate-income families to transition. I urge the Climate Action Council to include the Gas Transition and Affordability Act (S8198) to begin this process. Related to this, NYS should commit at least $1 billion annually to support energy efficiency and electrification for disadvantaged communities and low- and moderate-income households. NYSERDA has estimated that this would be the minimum investment required to meet the need. A revolving loan fund for building decarbonization, modeled on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund should be created. Perhaps a price on GHG-producing products coming into New York State would provide the funding for families to transition. The public needs information on climate-friendly choices for building improvements and understanding of the savings to themselves and the environment. I support a major statewide information/education campaign. Thank you for reading my comments. | ||
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan conscientiously discusses possible routes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste water treatment. But, realistically, this would be very difficult, and wastewater contributes such a small volume of greenhouse gas emissions that the state would be better served by less attention to this in the short run. The Climate Action Council estimates that waste contributes 12% of total greenhouse gas emissions in New York State, and that wastewater treatment contributes 15% of that 12%. -- that is, less than 2% of overall greenhouse gases statewide. These emissions are not insignificant, but some of the means of reducing the impact of wastewater treatment are exceptionally expensive. Most notably, replacing septic tanks with connections to a sewer system is likely to be unaffordable in rural areas and in many towns and small cities. It would be better to devote funds to other recommendations in the Plan, such as shifting all organic waste to composting systems. A number of recommendations in this section entail state support for best practices in operating wastewater treatment plants and managing sewer systems, and these we certainly support. But the Plan also acknowledges that there is simply no data about greenhouse gas emissions for wastewater treatment facilities, so it would be appropriate to fund research on this. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations for reducing landfill usage are admirable, but we think they could go further. As the Plan notes, 70% of the material that municipal waste systems handle are discarded products and packaging. The Plan describes the many programs already in place to handle toxic waste in particular, including batteries, and the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies that require manufacturers of certain goods, such as computers, to handle their end-of-life disposal appropriately. The plan suggests some additional areas for EPR, which we support. The Plan also offers a range of strategies to reduce municipal waste, including a fee on waste, which would simultaneously raise money for alternatives, which we also support. The Plan also mentions reducing single-use plastics and expanding container deposits, and here the Plan should go further. A recent study found that merely 5% of plastic in the United States is recycled, an appallingly low number. Container deposits should be raised from the current five-cent level to at least 10 cents, and this should be applied to ALL single-use containers, in particular those used for bottled water. Drinks for which there is currently no deposit required -- water, energy drinks, juices, and teas -- form a significant part of our plastic waste stream, and we need policies that discourage throwing these containers into landfills. In addition, the huge expansion of package delivery use during the pandemic has not only brought more traffic but also has generated a correspondingly huge increase in cardboard and other packaging. While there are markets for recycling paper products, these markets are not infinite. Reducing this packaging at the source deserves more research and more focus on the responsibility of companies that use this packaging for reducing, reusing and recycling this packaging. Thank you. | |
| Matthew,Peck | This is by far the worst plan that has come out of Albany in a LONG time. Anyone that supports / votes for this plan must, before any of their changes take place, convert ALL their homes to include vehicles to all electric that can only come from solar or wind. They cannot used anything that comes from the use of vehicles or machines that uses fossil fuels. If it comes by truck, boat, plane they must be electric vehicles. Their food must come from farms that only uses electric tractors... No planes, trains or automobiles can be used for travel unless they are electric. There can be no exemptions for the supporters of this bill. | ||
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | While the Draft Scoping Plan stresses the value of diverting organic waste from landfills and incinerators, the Climate Action Council should lay out a clear timeline by which this must be accomplished. The Plan appropriately recognizes that there is a major opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions by converting all yard and inedible food waste to compost. This kind of organic material makes up almost a quarter of municipal solid waste. The decay of this material is the main reason why landfills play such a large role in emissions from waste, as organic decomposition generates methane, a greenhouse gas that captures 84 times as much heat as CO2 during the twenty year period following emission into the atmosphere. The Plan recommends that all cities and towns require the separation of organic waste and ban it form landfills and incinerators. With each New Yorker generating 1,850 pounds of waste each year, the Plan recommends a fee on waste that would help fund the development of composting infrastructure. The Plan also recognizes that removing organic material from the waste stream would reduce traffic to and from waste transfer stations, thus reducing this burden on environmental justice communities. And the Plan recommends providing state funding to help in the expansion of composting infrastructure. We support these recommendations, as the goals of organic diversion and composting are a necessary step if New York is to meet the goals of the CLCPA. However, this portion of the Plan would be strengthened by recommending timelines for cities and towns to meet these goals of diverting organic waste and developing composting infrastructure. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan appropriately recognizes the significance of capturing fugitive emissions from refrigerants, and we strongly support its recommendations for actions that would address this problem effectively. The 1987 Montreal Protocol banned the production of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants that depleted the ozone layer of Earth's atmosphere. These were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that, while they do not degrade ozone, have extremely high potential for warming the climate. An HFC molecule can trap as much as 13,900 times as much heat as a molecule of CO2. And while the production of CFCs has been banned, their use and resale on the secondary market continues. The Plan recommends a number of regulatory steps that the Department of Environmental Conservation can take to ensure that end-of-life disposal of refrigerators, air conditioners, HVAC systems and the like would prevent HFCs or CFCs from escaping into the atmosphere. We strongly support such action. Thank you. | |
| Mimi,Bluestone | 350Brooklyn | The Draft Scoping Plan appropriately recommends actions to prevent the leakage of greenhouse gases from landfills and anaerobic digesters, which it describes as "obvious and well documented." Municipal landfills throughout New York State have methane collection systems in place, but as the Plan recognizes, methane from decomposing organic materials still seeps through caps or escapes during the active dumping of mixed waste. While recommendations elsewhere to ban organic waste from landfills will eventually solve this problem, landfills will continue to generate for a long time because organic waste has been dumped for decades. In addition, anaerobic digesters must be properly managed or they can also leak methane. The Plan offers sensible recommendations for implementing more effective systems, for maintenance and monitoring, and for research, and we support these recommendations. | |
| lindsay,Cruz | Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. One Dish, One Spoon is a cultural and spiritual practice that means the land provides for all, and if some have an abundance of something, they share with others. This aligns completely with NYS’ vow for environmental justice for marginalized communities. Any exploitation and pollution of the natural resources of their Territories are also impacts to the cultural resources and health of the Haudenosaunee including non-Indigenous people, as we share the land with them. The omission of the Haudenosaunee not only reveals the inequality and injustice they endure, but continues to build on NYS’ tactics to keep the Haudenosaunee invisible and marginalized- culturally, spiritually, and economically. There are already many barriers Indigenous communities face in accessing and benefiting from the renewable energy transition. These barriers and concerns can only be addressed when robust, genuine, and dedicated state- to-Nation dialogue is conducted over time. Please participate in influencing the energy and climate future by telling NYS that you recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as sovereign Nations with political and cultural agency. We have power in the collective voice. | ||
| Elizabeth,Speck | MindOpen Learning Strategies, LLC | Indigenous communities in New York State have always been on the frontline of direct impacts of climate change and have the distinct cultural, ecological, and historical relationship to the land in understanding best practices for stewardship. They are well informed about how to meet the energy needs of their people and NYS’ ambitious climate goals; their voices are critical. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities are properly consulted and given decision-making power around the processes taking place at the Climate Action Council given the vast implications of policies, land practices, and funding mechanisms being considered. State-to-Nation channels must be established to ensure collaboration from Indigenous communities as to the Scoping Plan in a manner that respects the timeline for the unique decision-making processes within the Nations. One Dish, One Spoon is a cultural and spiritual practice that means the land provides for all, and if some have an abundance of something, they share with others. This aligns completely with NYS’ vow for environmental justice for marginalized communities. Any exploitation and pollution of the natural resources of their Territories are also impacts to the cultural resources and health of the Haudenosaunee including non-Indigenous people, as we share the land with them. The omission of the Haudenosaunee not only reveals the inequality and injustice they endure, but continues to build on NYS’ tactics to keep the Haudenosaunee invisible and marginalized- culturally, spiritually, and economically. Please participate in influencing the energy and climate future by telling NYS that you recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as sovereign Nations with political and cultural agency. We have power in our collective voice; let’s use it to make the right change to ensure a future for the next seven generations to come. | |
| Jacqueline,Crawley | Dear Climate Action Council, This is to commend your attention to Waste issues in your Draft Scoping Plan. A huge number of excellent points are made. However, more needs to be specified about (a) reducing plastics, and (b) composting. While the Plastic Bag Waste Reduction Act was a measure of major important, enforcement remains woefully insufficient. Citizen observations reveal a large number of stores that continue to hand out plastic bags routinely. When confronted, managers either say they never heard of the law, or that they heard of it but it is not mandatory, or that they need to serve their customers. Or they just turn and walk away. A much stronger effort is needed to patrol and fine store owners who continue to place customer's purchases in plastic bags. Fines need to be high enough for full deterrence. While composting is available in a few areas of New York City, universal composting by the city must be our next step. Hands-on education about what goes into the brown bin, where buildings should store their brown bins until collection day, and the environmental advantages of composting, needs to be simultaneously funded. Distributing free composted soil to neighborhood gardens will provide further positive advertising. Just as it took some time for people to get used to recycling, it will take some time for everyone to begin composting. Be patient, while ensuring that compost bins and pick-up routes are ubiquitous. Thanks so much for listening to our public comments, Jacqueline Crawley | ||
| Kim,Sowers | NYS Resident | 1. Do not eliminate gas furnaces for residential heating. At a minimum, continue to allow natural gas and propane for residential emergency generators and gas fireplaces. We have a gas fireplace and it provides just enough heat to keep the pipes from freezing and keep us from going to a shelter when we loose electricity for extended periods of time in cold weather. 2. Use State law to void any homeowner association bans on solar or wind energy. Maybe there can be reasonable size restrictions, but not bans. 3. I have concerns with geothermal heat pumps. Those pipes in the ground will eventually leak. This will contaminate soil and groundwater and possibly drinking water supplies. What is the cost to fix the pipes and will homeowner be liable for the cleanup? 4. Require new residential developments to include significant solar, wind, or other alternative energy investments. 5. All new commercial buildings should include solar roofs or wind turbines. 6. Promote the use of landfill gas and other renewable gases over drilled natural gas. Landfill gas is going to be generated and burned anyway so it may as well be used to displace drilled gas. | |
| Jacqueline,Crawley | Dear Climate Action Council, This is to urge you to specify the installation of much larger numbers of electric vehicle charging stations throughout New York. The first reason that many people do not consider an electric car is that they don't have a convenient, readily available place to charge it. Many easy opportunities exist in New York City. Installing several electric charging stations in the parking lots of each apartment building, each commercial building, and each hotel, would be an excellent solution. Charging stations next to street parking (with strict enforcement and large fines for a car not actually being charged while parked next to a charging station), shopping malls, and gas stations could handle most of the rest of the needs. Subsidizing the charging costs, e.g. free for one year, would further persuade potential electric vehicle users. Your Transportation group already addressed electric vehicle charging stations to some extent. Considerably more details, about specific locations, and a calculated density of charging stations, needs to be added. The goal is to make charging stations ubiquitous, simple and easy. The cost would be relatively low. New Yorkers need the reassurance that charging will not be a problem. Without this confidence, all of our good intentions to transition to electric cars will remain unrealized. Thanks for your attention to this comment, Jacqueline Crawley | ||
| Allen,Blair | I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. | ||
| Allen,Blair | I wholeheartedly support upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating . Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. | ||
| Allen,Blair | I am deeply concerned about climate change because of the danger it poses to future generations and the present challenges we must already face. We must dramatically reduce our emissions in every sector to limit further harm. We must do everything we can to help transition NY homes and businesses - the largest source of GHG emissions in NY - to net zero. For some, the costs of heating a home can be crippling in the winter and the lack of air conditioning in the summer can put them in peril. Electrification, in combination with weatherization and other efficiency improvements provides a path to affordable living for those who struggle to maintain acceptable living conditions. For others, it provides a path to more predictable living expenses and a cleaner environment. For all of us, it provides a path to a cleaner and better future. Fossil fuel interests have been spreading misinformation about the Scoping Plan, describing its vision for a fossil fuel-free New York as “unaffordable”, and electric home heating as “unreliable”. I reject these deliberate mischaracterizations and I congratulate the Climate Action Council for successfully mapping a transition to electric heating which is BOTH affordable AND reliable. The recent events in Ukraine underscore the need for energy independence and fossil fuel independence. Putin’s horrific actions are compelling nations across the globe to reduce their dependence on oil and gas so as to avoid funding a tyrannous regime. Furthermore, the rising cost of fossil fuels since Putin’s Ukraine invasion has been dictated by global market conditions and not by our nation’s ability (or inability) to meet its own fossil fuel needs. We must do our part to remove fossil fuels from the international geopolitical equation, and at the same time provide reliable, clean and affordable energy to meet the needs of homes and businesses in New York State. | ||
| Robert,Doucette | Paramount Realty Group, LLC | The members of Paramount Realty Group, LLC own and manage a 240,000 square feet mixed use property located at 401 S. Salina Street, Syracuse, NY 13202. Recently we have explored the potential of installing solar panels on our roof to offset the costs of our electrical load and to reduce our carbon footprint. All of the factors line up favorably for us including sufficient roof space, sufficient structural load capacity and unobstructed access to the sun. We're ready to move forward but for one issue. National Grid will not allow us to tie into their system because we may add energy onto their grid and we're told that the grid cannot accommodate any additional energy transmissions flowing back onto their system . Obviously this is an outcome that is in direct contradiction to the aims of proposed NYS Climate Act. The Act, NYS, and National Grid need to address this issue and provide whatever upgrades are needed to allow us and other property owners to access solar power. In the alternative the State and or National Grid should subsidize the purchase of battery systems for commercial properties so that all the solar energy generated will be used or be retained on site. | |
| Susan,Augenbraun | I would like to commend the Plan for recognizing the significance of fugitive emissions from refrigerants, and support its recommendations for actions that effectively address this problem. The plan includes a number of regulatory steps for the DEC to ensure that refrigerators, A/Cs, HVAC, etc., are disposed of properly. It's very important to keep HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) out of the atmosphere—they are thousands of times worse for warming than CO2 is! When you consider how many refrigerants, ACs, etc. are in use across New York State, this is a hugely consequential piece of the problem. We need strong regulation to keep these dangerous molecules out of the atmosphere, and the Plan's recommendations are an excellent first step. | ||
| Mark,Keister | Silva Harvesting, Inc. | Silva Harvesting Inc. (SHI) supports NY Society of American Foresters position policy statement "Forest Management, Carbon and Climate Change" thank you, Mark Keister, president SHI | |
| Claudine ,Savage | PSEG LI / IBEW 1049 | Doing away with Gas is NOT AN OPTION. We need back up fuel option such as hydrogen or fossil fuels. It’s impacts the generation of electric. Without these important elements there is NO BACK UP. THINK before making such radical rules & issues that will impact us all. | |
| Terry,Carroll | Tompkins County | Please see attached for comments from the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability. | has attachment |
| Becca,Halter | Saranac Lake Climate Smart Communit ies Task Force | The Saranac Lake Climate Smart Communities Task Force is a local group of citizens, mostly volunteers, committed to stopping cli mate change in our community. We applaud the extensive amount of work achieved in the New York State Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. This plan is a critical framework to achieve the critically necessary and state mandated climate objectives. Overall, we encourage this plan to be fully funded, legislated, and enforced. The CLCPA is a law and it should be implemented and enforced as such. This plan should keep people, including their health, environmental justice, and education at the center. Only when climate actions become the best choice, morally, financially or otherwise, will it become fully supported and adopted. Detailed comments and recommendations are contained in the attached document. | has attachment |
| Douglas,Gausman | Sierra Club Susquehanna Group | ||
| Wes,Ernsberger | none | See attached. This is the testimony I provided at the public hearing in Binghamton. Thanks, Wes | has attachment |
| Wilhelmina,Peragine | Wilhelmina Peragine | I urge the Climate Action Council to adopt the strongest possible measures to meet New York's commitment to the goals of the CLCPA. As the mother of two young children, I fear for their future. Only aggressive action will stem the tide of the climate crisis that will affect their lives and the lives of THEIR children. New York must continue to be a national leader in climate policy. We can be a laboratory for best practices in carbon emission reductions across all sectors: buildings, transportation and power generation. The CAC must not dilute its thoughtful strategies in order to give in to fears of short-term disruption or appease special interests. Future generations will be the judges. | |
| Timothy,McLaughlin | I'm happy to see that the CAC recognizes the significant impact that organic waste has on GHG emissions and recommends the separation of this sort of waste. But I think this part of the Scoping Plan can be strengthened by adding timelines for municipalities to reach these goals of organic diversion and composting infrastructure | ||
| Edward,Foote | This proposal is based on a lot of wishful thinking, political hubris, and bureaucratic jargon that I recognize from my career in economic development and energy related involvements. Unlike an honest prospectus it fails completely to address drawbacks, challenges to execution and harms to economic growth the mid and low income households. This plan is more political manifesto than reasonable and pragmatic plan for New Yorkers. #1 Concern Proposed abandonment of new natural gas use is too aggressive. There should be completely certified clean electric supply available prior to bans on on natural gas use. Otherwise, NY fails in two crucial areas: we'll just import more coal fired power from Ohio, and; send more of our hard earned capital out of state. #2 I believe New Yorker should do its share to decarbonize, but we should not screw half the State's population with political grandstanding. I object to any imperative to be nation or world leading. NY is already a shrinking state. If this plan is implemented as offered, NY will lead the nation in population and economic decline. #3 Every time the plan uses the word "justice " I think: "Y'all full of s---. " #4 The majority of financial subsidy and support appears to flow to industrial and commercial interests, including large building owners and energy businesses. I object to reverse Robin Hood where NY government wants to take taxpayer money and give it to privileged property owners. | ||
| SUSAN,Keister | KEISTER CONSULTING, INC | As a forester, landowner and chair of the NY Society of American Foresters, I have read and concur with the position paper submitted. It reflects my opinion and thoughts in this matter. | |
| Dale,Soos | While the Climate Action Council's goal is a noble one to reduce greenhouse emissions, the infrastructure simply does not exist at this time, and implementing such will be costly and possibly unobtainable with current tech. The energy to replace natural gas and other fossil and even renewable (i.e. wood) fuels will require vast other natural resources that require massive amounts of post-harvesting or mining processing, often in countries where there are no environmental restrictions. This is an unacceptable situation for the global environment. Gradual phasing of such a plan may be possible, but to remove all other means of energy is irresponsible and dangerous as there will be other desperate measures implemented by those that have liquid/gaseous fuel-fired equipment and to replace these is not a viable option, regardless of the good intentions of others. | ||
| John,Stevens | Please stop this ridiculous proposal to eliminate natural gas usage . This state is getting out of hand. John | ||
| Robert,Heinemann | What will it take to get through to our legislators in Albany that New Yorkers cannot wait any longer for serious climate legislation? New York’s state Senate, Assembly and Governor must act together, now. Important climate legislation is pending with only days left before lawmakers adjourn until January 2023. In particular, the All Electric Building Act headlines a package of bills to decarbonize our buildings, a major source of New York's greenhouse gas emissions. It is totally doable to require electric heating and appliances in new low-rise construction beginning in 2024, and in new larger buildings beginning in 2027. Heat pumps work very well in cold climates, and many upstate residents already save money with installed geothermal heat pump systems. There is no reason to allow gas heating and other appliances to be permitted in new construction when excellent electric alternatives are available and many well paying jobs will be created to install them. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie must bring the All Electric Building Act and other climate bills up for a vote so that they will pass in this legislative session. Gov. Hochul must ensure that the final scoping plan of the Climate Action Council contains strong policies so that we actually achieve the emissions reduction targets set in New York's 2019 climate law. Procrastination must yield to doing the right thing, now. We don't have any more time to waste. | ||
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Please see the attached file for comments. - Thank you! | has attachment |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Please see the attached document. - Thank you! | has attachment |
| Maura,McNulty | Climate Reality Project | Hello, My name is Maura McNulty. I am a lifelong resident of New York State and a member of the Climate Reality Project. Waste reduction, along with reuse and recycling of materials and products, is essential to limiting GHG emissions. We must reduce or eliminate GHG emissions associated by implementing more environmentally conscious production, packaging, and distribution. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste, along with increased funding for sustainable materials research. Legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis, will serve the dual purposes of limiting GHG emissions and educating the public about how important. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Reduction and increased management of waste in disadvantaged and other environmental justice communities will be key in reducing disproportionate exposure to emissions and other safety risks including, but not limited to, truck traffic. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. Rethinking and redesigning waste systems is vital to a transformative outcome. Thank you for all your work on our behalf. | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Climate Reality Finger Lakes Greater R egion NY Chapter | We must reduce or eliminate GHG emissions associated with materials and products whose production can be avoided by implementing more environmentally conscious packaging, distribution, and marketing options support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Single-use plastics are the new coal: GHG emissions from US plastics industry on track to surpass emissions from coal by 2030. The utilization of recycled materials can markedly reduce waste volume and associated emissions. For instance, the use of recycled paper products not only reduces demand for “virgin timber” but also reduces the number of trees that could be utilized as natural sequestering of emissions. Reduction and increased management of waste in disadvantaged and other environmental justice communities will be key in reducing disproportionate exposure to emissions and other safety risks including, but not limited to, truck traffic. I wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Hudson Valley & Catskills Climate Reality Chapter | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | I'm re-submitting because I'm not sure my attached comment on Electricity was included in my first submission. Thank you. | has attachment |
| Judy,Harris | Please see attached. I may have submitted this twice in my effort to make sure that it was received by you. | has attachment | |
| René,Carver | please review my comments in the attached document | has attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please refer to the attached file. | has attachment |
| Barbara,Luka | I am resubmitting because my attachment was not included in my first submission. (Thank you for providing a way for us to confirm that our comments have been correctly submitted.) | has attachment | |
| Judy,Harris | Please see attached. | has attachment | |
| Suzie,Ross | Green Ossining | ||
| Jason,Winocour | I am environmentally conscious and responsible. A few years ago, I installed solar panels on my roof and have had electric baseboard heat for years. However, I recently purchased a backup generator for my home that runs on propane. I installed the generator because the power goes out quite often at my home, due to ongoing poor service from Central Hudson. The Climate Act needs to recognize that backup energy options that run on fossil fuels are vital for many New Yorkers — especially New Yorkers who have unreliable service from their utility providers. | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | please see attached comments. thank you | has attachment |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please reference the uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project - Long Island C hapter | Achieving the climate goals of the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act will depend on, among other factors, the support of New York's labor community. Without a robust, mandated commitment to union jobs paying prevailing wage, this will be impossible. Many jobs in the residential solar industry are not, in fact, union jobs. If this is allowed to become a general practice in the renewables industries, we will fail in being able to pass the necessary laws to implement the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Labor unions will mount fierce opposition just when we need to have them on board. A Just Transition means good union jobs. That should be a mandate written into the scoping plan. | |
| Maura,McNulty | The Climate Reality Project | Hello, My name is Maura McNulty. I have lived in NY nearly all of my life, and I expect to remain a lifelong resident. I am also a member of the Climate Reality Project. I am very grateful to the Climate Action Council, associated working groups, advisory panels, and all agency staff who contributed to the development of this impressive plan. Thank you for including Economy-wide Strategies as an important addition to the draft plan, because we are at risk of missing CLCPA targets. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. Please recommend adopting a price on carbon in the final plan. Countless economists and scientists say that it is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of GHGs. Carbon pricing would amplify the impact of many other recommended policies and programs. I support a carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. Starting with a carbon price that rises gradually each year is necessary to provide people and businesses reasonable time to transition to cleaner energy sources in response to clear, predictable pricing signals. Please note that carbon pricing is preferred over many other alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and predictable, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. The fossil fuel lobbies are waging a fierce war to preserve their short term financial interests. It is up to us to help the public understand the benefits of a planned transition to renewable energy and a sustainable economy. Please do everything in your power to implement Scenario # 3. Thanks for your service. | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Dear Climate Action Council, I’m Laura Faulk and I live in Saratoga Springs. I’m the Co-chair of The Climate Reality Project, Capital Region, NY Chapter. My professional background is in science and engineering. I have a degree in physics from the University of Texas at Austin and was an engineer and manager in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. I’m gravely concerned about the increasing disruption to our life sustaining climate system. I urge the Council to immediately fund and start a sustained statewide education and awareness campaign on the benefits of a clean energy economy as well as on the economic, health, security, and climate risks of reliance on fossil fuels. This education campaign is necessary to counter the relentless and massive disinformation crusades by fossil-fuel interests and status-quo forces who’ve spent decades perfecting their chicanery, first to deny climate science, and now to cast doubt on the solutions. Given their long and expansive track record of weaponizing disinformation to sustain the extraction and burning fossil fuels, the absence of a public information component in the scoping plan is a surprising, but grave oversight. We are already seeing the effects of a well funded disinformation campaign around building electrification. I was targeted by a Google Ad that connected to a letter writing tool written by fossil fuel interests and utilities that was full of misinformation about building electrification and heat pumps. I heard residents repeating the talking points during the virtual Draft Scoping Plan hearings. New York desperately needs an effective state campaign to counter this disinformation. Thank you, Laura Faulk | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please see the attached file. | has attachment |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley & Catskills | Please see attached document | has attachment |
| Tim,Guinee | My name is Tim Guinee. I am resident of Ulster County. I am a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Committee on the Acceleration of Climate Solutions. I am of the belief that mankind faces no greater challenge than the climate crisis... nor has any greater opportunity. The state must create a sustained policy of educating the public about the crisis before us. mLegislation alone if unsupported by the populace cannot achieve the ends we need. We are currently faced by a well financed campaign aimed at foiling New York's climate policies by companies who will reap financial benefit if those policies fail. We must counter this disinformation. I thank the Climate Action Council, for the creation of this extraordinary scoping plan.. | ||
| Judy,Harris | Please see attached. | has attachment | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Climate Reality Finger Lakes Greater R egion NY Chapter | Thank you for the inclusion of Economy-wide Strategies as an important addition to the draft plan, because even full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. The adaptation of a price on carbon should be included in the final plan. Countless economists and scientists say that it is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. It would also place carbon-based investment in proper alignment with other options, giving a fairer picture. A carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. There should also be additional fees for air and water polluters. Carbon price should rise by a significant amount each year to further encourage transition away from carbon-based fuels. No subsidies should be given to fossil fuel companies. | |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project - Long Island C hapter | I am a resident of East Hampton, which in popular misconception is a place where only the wealthy live. But many might be surprised to find out that we actually have a large low-income, diverse community, mostly living in the hamlet of Springs. A majority of students in the local school are Hispanic, and 12% are eligible for the free lunch program. Our local food pantry serves hundreds of local residents each week. Many local residents are renters or low income home owners who live in substandard housing. Yet these residents are not included in the criteria for an EJ community. Springs, the most densely settled hamlet in East Hampton, is one of the two communities in the town most threatened by climate change, according to a just released draft report by the East Hampton Coastal Assessment Resiliency Plan committee. Yet Springs is not included as an EJ community in the draft CAC Scoping Plan. This is an injustice. The Scoping Plan needs to develop criteria for EJ inclusion that does not discriminate against small low income communities that are contained within the borders of wealthier towns, as is true in many places on Long Island. If this is not done, we will not be able to meet the climate goals of the NY Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act because too many people will face steep economic barriers to implementing climate smart retrofits to homes. | |
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | comment attached | has attachment |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please reference the uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Cat skills | See my uploaded file. Thank you. | has attachment |
| Judy,Harris | |||
| Maura,McNulty | Climate Reality Project | Hello, My name is Maura McNulty. I live in Albany. I write to you with urgency, because our time is running short. To fail to act now is to doom ourselves and our children to an uncertain, dangerous future. Electricity generation currently accounts for about 13% of New York’s GHG emissions. However, by 2050, our electricity needs in New York will double, as we electrify our buildings and transportation sectors. Therefore, we not only need to decarbonize our generation capacity, but we also need to add significant amounts of new carbon-free generation capacity. Decarbonizing and expanding electricity generation in NY is critical to decarbonizing the buildings, transportation and industrial sectors. As we transition our homes, businesses, and private and public transportation to electrical power, affordable, reliable and clean electricity is essential for achieving our net-zero goal. I strongly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040. We can do this with regulatory options and market mechanisms while maintaining reliability and affordability. To this end, I strongly advocate for shutting down gas-fired power plants ASAP. We can assuage public concern regarding the siting of renewables through a fully funded public approach. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. I am firmly in favor of Scenario # 3. Thank you for your service on our behalf. | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Climate Reality Finger Lakes Greater R egion NY Chapter | I would like to express my support for NYSERDA's current renewable energy procurement targets. Because of rampant misinformation and green washing by the fossil fuel industry, we need to enhance public education of the facts and encourage more communities to adapt siting of renewables. There are lots of land areas which would be useful for siting such as highway rights of way and brownfields (should be added to scoping plan). We need to support more research on long-term energy storage. Hydraulic storage (water can be pumped uphill during peak solar times with excess energy, then can be used as energy generators when flowing back down. We don't want to use hydrogen as a peak backup in pipelines. It only prolongs the use of the gas infrastructure. Plus, hydrogen can be only used as a limited blend due to incompatibility with the lines themselves. Also the gas appliances as they are aren't set up to use a hydrogen fuel and they would need to be modified or replaced. Better to go all-electric directly. Green hydrogen (by electrolysis) is expensive to generate and should only be used for specialty applications where no other sources can be used. It should not be wasted to supplement gas use. The overall grid needs to be upgraded to permit fast responses and sharing of resources over a wider area. In the whole process, we need to take Disadvantaged communities into account and they need to be relieved of the fossil fuel plants in their proximity. | |
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | comment attached | has attachment |
| Amber,Wesser | I am all for lessening our Carbon Emissions, but this is not the way. We have to come up with an actual plan and how it will be carried out and the cost to the everyday homeowner. I live in an area that has 90% of the homes using gas to heat our homes and cook. Our electric grid is not powerful enough nor do I want to fully rely on something that goes out often in my area. We have many months of cold weather and being a person who lived here during the October storm, where we were without power for 10 days, it was a god-send to have our gas still functional to be able able to eat and heat water. I strongly feel that these decisions were made by individuals who do not have a clue what it is like to be under snow and ice for 10 days without electric to heat your home. Our furnace needed the electric to start and we were sitting in our home in snowsuits or multiple blankets just to stay warm. More energy is needed to come up with a plan and it has to be realistic. Many WNY residents can not afford to spend $25K to $50K to convert our homes to this new law, even by 2050. Are we going to get free money - not loans - grants to cover this expense? | ||
| Maria,Reidelbach | Climate change is impacting us NOW! The time to switch to renewable energy is NOW! The time to transition to a plant-based diet is NOW! The time to reduce fossil fuels as low as possible is NOW! We cannot afford to waste another moment! | ||
| Christine,Amos | retired | A big NO to the “Our Climate Act Draft Scoping Plan ! This plan is not only drastic, it is not realistic for ALL residents of NYS. Green energy is NOT ready to sustain the residents and businesses of NY proposed by this plan. Switching to green energy is NOT Affordable for most NY middle and lower class residents currently. Natural gas is the Cleanest, Most Efficient and Affordable energy source and to outlaw it when green energy is NOT ready to sustain our state is negligent, short sighted and will create great hardship to residents and businesses. Attempts to eliminate Fossil Fuels is an attack especially on the middle class and poor when Green Energy is not at the point to sustain all and is also NOT affordable. Also an attack on businesses that green energy cannot adequately support. Everyone knows when Government is involved – everything Costs More and Is Less Efficient. Heat Pumps are only adequate to a certain temperature (not the lows upstate NY experiences). Solar works when the sun is shining and many winter days experience No Sun. Additionally, solar doesn’t work when the panels are snow covered. Wind turbines only work when the wind is blowing and even the Most Green people don’t want them in “ their back yard”. (also a problem to dispose of) Certain businesses in our community have been shut down partially due to the grid not being able to sustain them in the summer months – this absolutely demonstrates that NYS can not just “flip the switch” until the grid is able to sustain everyone without blackouts, brownouts, and until it is Affordable For All to obtain. Questions regarding Green Energy: 1) I have yet to hear anyone address what will happen with the Highly Toxic solar panels OR electric car batteries upon their expiration ? 2) What is the energy cost to charge an electric car? (as most are smart enough to know that it’s not going to be “free”) ? 3) How is the middle or lower class supposed to be able to purchase an electric | |
| Ted,Millar | The New York State legislature will be adjourning for the summer June 2. Therefore, it is imperative we call on Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to bring the "All-Electric Building Act" to a vote so it passes in this legislative session. This weekend's unusual heatwave and aberrant weather all over the world are further proof we will face what United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called an "atlas of human suffering” after reading a recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report if we don't take drastic measures to eliminate greenhouse gases. According to a recent World Meteorological Association (WMO) “Decadal Climate Update,” we may have only five years to avoid the 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels limit the IPCC reiterated last year. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: While the Draft Scoping Plan conscientiously discusses possible routes to lowering GHG emissions from solid waste water treatment, realistically this would be so difficult and waste water treatment contributes such a small volume of GHG emissions that the State would be better served by less attention to this in the short run. The Climate Action Council estimates that waste contributes 12% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from New York State and that wastewater treatment contributes 15% of that 12%, that is, less than 2% to the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the state. While not insignificant, some of the means of reducing the impact of water treatment are exceptionally expensive. Most notably, replacing septic tanks with connections to a sewer system is likely to be unaffordable for rural New York towns and small cities. Money would be better spent on other recommendations in the Plan as, for example, shifting all organic waste to composting systems. A number of recommendations in this section entail NYS support for best practices in, for example, operating wastewater treatment plants and managing sewer systems, and these we certainly support. But the Plan also admits that there is simply no data about GHG emissions for wastewater treatment facilities, so funding for studies of this issue might be appropriate. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: The Draft Scoping Plan’s emphasis on recommending ways in which landfill usage could be reduced is admirable, but we think it could go further. As the Plan notes, 70% of the material that municipal waste systems handle are discarded products and packaging. The Plan describes the many programs already in place to handle particularly toxic waste, such as batteries, and the Extended Producer Responsibility policies that require manufacturers of goods, such as computers, to handle their end-of-life disposal appropriately. It suggests some additional areas for EPR, which we support. The Plan offers a range of strategies to reduce municipal waste, such as a fee on waste, which would simultaneously raise money for alternatives, which we also support. The Plan mentions reducing single use plastics used in stores and expanding container deposits, and here’s a place where we think the Plan could go further. A recent study found that merely 5% of plastic in the US is recycled, an appalling low number. Container deposits should be raised to 10 cents, and should be applied to all single use containers, particularly bottled water. Non-deposit drinks like water, energy drinks, juices, and teas form a significant part of our plastic waste and throwing them away should be discouraged. In addition, the huge expansion of package delivery use during the pandemic not only brings more traffic but has generated a correspondingly huge increase in cardboard and other packaging. While there is a market for recycling paper products, it’s not endless. Reducing this at the source is worth figuring out. Best, Sara S. Gronim | |
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Council: While the Draft Scoping Plan appropriately stresses the value of diverting organic waste from landfills and incinerators, the recommendations concerning addressing organic waste should be stronger. Among other things, the Climate Action Council should lay out a clear timeline by which this must be accomplished. The Plan appropriately recognizes that a significant opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions stemming from waste is to convert all yard and inedible food waste to compost. . Almost a quarter of municipal solid waste consists of such organic material. The decay of this material is the primary reason why landfills play such a large role in emissions from waste, as organic decomposition generates methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a twenty year span. The Plan recommends that all cities and towns require the separation of organic waste, and ban all of it from landfills and incinerators. With each New Yorker generating 1,850 pounds of waste per year, the Plan recommends a fee on waste would help fund the development of composting infrastructure. The Plan also recognizes that removing organic material from the waste stream would reduce the traffic to and from waste transfer stations, thus reducing this burden on environmental justice communities. And the Plan recommends state funding to assist in the expansion of composting infrastructure. I support these recommendations, as the goals of organic diversion and composting are a necessary step if New York State is to reach the goals of the CLCPA. However, the Plan would be strengthened by recommending timelines for cities and towns to reach these goals of organic diversion and composting infrastructure. Sincerely, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Members of the Climate Council, The chapter on Waste, which makes many sensible recommendations, does not address incineration. The Plan should categorically recommend an end to all garbage incineration in New York State. While the Plan recommends the diversion of yard and food waste from incinerators, this is part of its focus on separating organic materials from the general waste stream and directing them to composting facilities. The Plan does not address incinerators per se. Yet burning of any kind produces carbon dioxide, and burning mixed materials releases many other gasses into the air. Incineration both contributes to global warming and to local air pollution. And incinerators are virtually always located in low-income rural communities and in communities of color. Incineration is therefore an environmental justice issue. There should be no place for incinerating waste in New York State. Current incinerators should be phased out and no new ones should be built. This should be a clear, explicit recommendation in the final Scoping Plan. Thank you, Sara Gronim | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: I want to take this opportunity to support a key recommendation in the chapter on Waste. The Plan appropriately recommends actions to prevent the leakage of greenhouse gasses from landfills and anaerobic digesters, describing them as “obvious and well-documented.” While municipal landfills throughout New York State have methane collections systems in place, the Plan recognizes that methane from decomposing organic material still seeps through caps or escapes during the active dumping of mixed waste. While recommendations elsewhere to ban organic waste from landfills will eventually solve this problem, decades of organic waste dumping mean that landfills will continue to generate methane for a long time. Moreover, anaerobic digesters, if not properly managed, can also leak methane. The Plan offers sensible recommendations for implementing more effective systems, for maintenance and monitoring, and for research, and I support these recommendations. Please ensure that these are retained in the final Scoping Plan. Thank you! Sara Gronim | ||
| Joanne,Boger | 350 Brooklyn | I am the owner of a 100 year old 2 family house in Brooklyn, and I recently decommissioned my gas furnace in favor of electric heat pumps. Now my only use of gas is for cooking. I see how dramatic it is to throw out the steam radiators and watch my gas bills drop from $650 per month in winter to $20 -- the minimum fee. Once this drop in gas consumption begins to be repeated as buildings electrify their heating all across the city, it means National Grid almost goes out of business! I don't see how we can expect any corporation (no matter how public spirited that company might be) to creatively plan its way down to zero. And in order to make sure the transition goes smoothly, reduced gas delivery will increase the demand for electricity and changes to electricity billing rates. This whole complex transition cannot be left up to private corporations to manage. Such a drastic process will have to be managed, encouraged, and ultimately compelled by government action. The scoping plan needs to identify the state agencies that will be in charge of this vital transition and make sure those agencies have the capacity that the job requires. I believe that the Public Service Commission, for example, has to be given authority and directed to make the CLCPA a fundamental element of its mission. Building governmental oversight capacity is something that the scoping plan must address more fully. | |
| Joanne,Boger | 350 Brooklyn | I'm a Brooklyn resident who long ago gave up riding in cars in the city, in favor of my bicycle and my Metrocard! So I have a great interest in seeing how my personal values are amplified by the scoping plan, in areas that are harder to change, such as aviation and heavy trucks. These forms of transportation will be more difficult to transition to cleaner technology than my personal mobility. But the scoping plan refers to some techniques that look like false hopes: “renewable diesel” and “renewable jet fuel" are mentioned in the plan. Replacing fossil fuels with biiofuels will bring its own problems! Trying to raise enough crops to power the aviation industry seems foolhardy: why would we divert our precious agricultural land to making fuels which would still release carbon dioxide when burned? But even more of a pie in the sky hope is the development of so called “green” hydrogen. This is not currently an option. It is currently too expensive to be marketable and its volatility would require building out extensive infrastructure to ensure safety. And even if "green" hydrogen were produced, it yields carbon dioxide in large amounts which (to be green at all). would have to be paired with Carbon Capture and Storage. And that is a technology that is not currently available at scale and at a marketable price. New York’s Clean Energy Standard must steer clear of both biofuels and hydrogen. | |
| Barbara,Grant | I am opposed to this climate purposal were every new york home will have to transition to all electric. First the expense of transitioning is not doable especialkyvfor low income and the elderly electricity is very expensive as many people experienced this past February when people who normally paid $200 a month without using for heating saw their bills go to $500 for that month when contacting company no real explanation. Likely they estimated their bills that month which occurs often with nyseg but should show a credit the following month but that didn't happen. Often when we have wind or snow storms the electricity is out for days so people would have to have generators run by propane or gasoline or Woodstock just to stay in their homes during these outages or watch their pipes freeze and burst. The electrical grid isn't big enough to handle 100 percent usage and how would you produce this electricity to do this with more nuclear plants which are worst pollution. Currently these plants are hydro, propane and nuclear run and some solar. If you use more solar that means more of those ugly land panels which takes up usable land and who knows what kind of pollution they create and do to wildlife. I am a Democrat but I definitely will not be voting for any Democrat in the future that votes or passes this proposal | ||
| Joanne,Boger | 350 Brooklyn | I live in Brooklyn and I'm a back yard gardener and concerned climate voter! I believe the scoping plan needs to be strengthened to set a timeline for a total ban on any type of waste incineration. The carbon dioxide and other emissions which are released by incinerators cause global warming and put heavy particles and toxic gases into the air we breathe. Those communities near incinerators are the ones most harmed. Since this scoping plan is the guide for our state to meet the goals of the CLCPA, it is not really complete until there is a clear path to ending incineration. | |
| amy,fain | none | The government is in too big of rush to push things through. WE ARE NOT READY to give up gases of all types. WE need to SLOW things down. We are seniors and can't afford these things. Don't know how we will afford to heat our home let alone gas for our cars, and other utilities.... You push electric cars, how do people living in the country gonna charge them? Is the government gonna pay for it to be at my home? | |
| Kathleen,Fick | Do you realize how many poor and elderly cannot afford to change to all electric. And for rural people, an electric car is an impossibility. This plan is designed to destroy the electric grid as it is and freeze people to death because they have no heat, ability to cook and hot water to keep clean. This is just totally WRONG. | ||
| Gary,Beckett | RM Headlee Valves & Controls | We are not yet in a technological position to go 100% electric. In fact, we are not even close. Blending Hydrogen with Natural Gas although very expensive is our best bang for the buck while improving emissions. By the way changing from Coal to Natural Gas is and has been a huge improvement. Electric Transportation is a joke. Limit vehicle engine horsepower to 200, change driving habits to glide to a stop light, lower acceleration ability, strive for 50 mpg bench mark, increase tire pressure. | |
| Patricia,Bolton | It appears little consideration is given to rural Upstate New York customers. Electricity is not reliable....we lose power a lot, winter or summer so we have to have generators etc. or we lose frozen foods, refrigerated goods. Electricity is expensive and not reliable. Alternatives should be available. Electric vehicles are not the answer for rural upstate.......how would you ever be able to supply electric charging stations. Farmers need diesel/gas for tractors,etc.Electric tractors.....you've got to be kidding. Normal households need gas for lawnmowers and other gardening equipment. Does the State propose to buy back all the vehicles, power equipment, etc. Individuals can't afford to convert to all electric. Is the State going to pay for that????? Propane and fuel oil need to be available for individuals. Urban areas don't lose electricity like rural areas. Individuals in rural areas have to drive distances to work, school, etc. Riding a bike or walking isn't an alternative. I believe in trying to save the environment......but believe that there are ways to produce/manufacture more efficient vehicles, etc. It's no wonder individuals are leaving New York State. | ||
| Jeff,Leon | I’m proud to live in a State that is making such a well thought out, integrated effort to fight the climate challenge. Thanks for focusing equally on eliminating emissions and social justice. This plan, fully acted upon, can give us hope that we can get to a sustainable state without exceeding the tipping point. Personally, I achieved a net-zero living status 10 years ago. I hope the state can exceed its goals when more people realize that electrifying everything with renewable energy is the only way to solve the emissions problem and create the good jobs that the economy needs. | ||
| Cynthia,Hellert | As a resident of New York State, I am extremely concerned about many aspects of the scoping plan. Currently, upstate New York has more electricity than it needs and 90% is already carbon emission free. This plan is incredibly complex with over 800 pages of documents. The key assumptions are hidden deeply in the appendices and it is not a format that can be easily reviewed and understood by citizens. The summary statements lack specifics that we need. The plan should clearly designate the pros and cons with attention given to specific impacts to New Yorkers. We do not want a sales pitch! We’ve already been subjected to this by underhanded companies such as Apex Clean Energy. We want an explanation of how energy generation upstate will be delivered downstate where it is needed. Is the environmental harm of large scale energy projects worth the minuscule emissions reduction? It is unreasonable that rural towns are expected to release 1.1 million acres of productive farmland for industrialized electricity generation which is needed hundreds of miles away. How can it be justified particularly now when local food sources are in great demand? | ||
| Eric ,Kessler | Hi, my name is Eric Kessler and I’m a constituent in new Rochelle, ny. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping plan. I support the strongest possible climate action in NY. While the plan is a great step forward, I think it does not go far enough in certain areas. Fighting climate change it the single most important topic for me and my family. NY needs to lead the way for the nation and the world, and realize economic opportunities by innovating and deploying climate technologies at scale. I strongly support the draft plan’s proposed ban on any fossil fuels in new single-family homes and low-rise residential units built by 2024 and all buildings by 2027 as well as advanced energy building codes for new and renovated residential and commercial buildings. By 2040, New York State is required to reach a zero-emissions electric grid. The Final Scoping Plan must avoid recommendations that will perpetuate the combustion of fuels to generate electricity and push forward renewable and zero carbon forms of electricity generation. By 2050 our electricity needs will double, since we will be heating our homes and powering our vehicles with renewable electricity, we’ll need a 7x increase in solar capacity, a 10x increase in wind, and a 10x increase in storage. The state must make renewable energy siting a more streamlined and simplified process. The final plan should address obstacles to renewable energy siting which will require full staffing of state agencies like the Office of Renewable Energy Siting, and a public education campaign on the benefits and opportunities of clean energy. | ||
| Lee,Walker | Walker Enterprise | Are we taking into consideration the number of landfills that are still in operation to this date? Some of these landfills are releasing methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are being emitted right in the atmosphere. Are these numbers and variables being ran into how much greenhouse gases are being emitted? My second question is: is our current energy grid able to keep up with demand? Winters in upstate NY can be brutal. With more and more people using electricity, having electric heaters and then having to plug in their car to charge cars, can our grid be able to have the heavy demand in the winter? I agree, wind turbines and solar panels will help, but it will not be the total solution to the issue at hand. (Which is maintaining and making sure the grid can cope with it) Third and final question. Will there be more incentives, rebates, tax credits, and or exemptions for landowners to install mini-solar farms? Or if a landlord or lady start putting solar panels on their properties, rentals, and houses, will there be tax credits for that? Exemptions? Thank you for your time and consideration at looking at this! | |
| James,Ainscoe | This entire plan is an absolute disaster for New York! It is completely unrealistic and will cost people thousands on a yearly basis and of course as always will disproportionately hurt the middle and lower economic classes. Forcing people to switch from reliable natural gas appliances and not allowing anything but electricity in new buildings is moronic beyond belief. Do you not realize how much natural gas or coal or nuclear will be required to run all this electricity?! The whole idea climate justice as well is asinine. This is nothing more than another attempt by democrats to use the black community for votes when they will be harmed as much if not more than anyone else by this plan. We currently have very clean and very reliable energy that this plan will turn upside down. | ||
| Paul,Alexander | I’ll keep it brief… By passing this legislation we help insure a future for our children. Fossil fuels are a dead end. Monetary costs for extracting and distributing fossil fuels will only go up, cannot possibly stay same or go down. Environmental costs and degradation for using fossil fuels will only go up. Renewables will scale up and costs will drop while doing less harm to the environment. It is time to take bold action! Thank you! Paul Alexander | ||
| Steven,LaRock | The People of the State of New York are not ready for this plan. It places a huge burden on us that we cannot afford. Instead, New York should provide the leadership in combination with all other states and the Federal Government to develop appliances that are even more efficient and less polluting. This will move us generally in the right direction while providing time to resolve the many issues that this proposal raises. Natural Gas is the cleanest alternative we have that can meet the demand. We are foolish to think we can meet our needs for home heating, cooking, drying our clothes and heating our water with any other source at this time or within the time this proposal allots. All facets of the technologies required for the huge change this proposal requires are not available and will not be in time to meet the demands herein. Let’s work together on a reasonable timeline while we make the currently available resources like natural gas, and future resources like solar, wind and fission meet our needs through more research into efficiency, cleanliness, deliver ability and reasonable cost. Let’s not race current problems for future ones that may very well be worse. Gasoline burning cars are a problem for the environment and climate. However, electric cars could be an even bigger problem. Batteries, charging, range, and more are still far off in terms of required technology. Current electric cars are not the answer. Do the research. We can solve the problems of climate change, but we must do so effectively, reasonably and affordably, not by exchanging current problems for new ones. Let’s work together with all Americans, not in isolation as New Yorkers. | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Environmental justice must come first! Prioritizing the health and welfare of low-income communities and communities of color at the frontlines of the climate crisis. Creating the inclusive green economy of New York's future. New York’s Final Scoping Plan must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies. New York must establish a dedicated funding mechanism—by legislation if necessary—to ensure reductions of both greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions and to begin the state's large-scale transition to an equitable renewable energy economy. An equitable economy-wide pollution fee is likely the best approach to generate the necessary funds in a just manner. The Climate Action Council put forth three scenarios for our climate future. Of the three, NY Renews is advocating for scenario three: low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen combustion and the simultaneous acceleration of electrification of both buildings and transportation to ensure clean air and a healthy environment. In order to reach a zero-emissions power sector by 2040, New York needs a rapid, large-scale transition away from fossil fuels. The CLCPA Is Law—Treat It Like One The Scoping Plan must ensure that the mandates put forth by the Climate Action Council are legally enforceable against industries and include timelines for the reduction of emissions by sector. Provisions for environmental justice and emission reduction mean nothing if they cannot be enforced or if there aren't rules in place for what happens when our climate justice laws are broken. | ||
| Susan ,Jordan | The ideas that you are promoting are all well and good except for a few major problems, the most important being infrastructure. My husband and I live on a 250 acre farm in central New York. A few years back we were interested in using some of our acreage for a solar farm (we already have solar panels for our own electrical needs). We went through all of the steps only to find that the substation which we would have to use did not have enough capacity for the electricity we could provide. We know several farmers near us who would also be interested in using some of their land for solar farms, BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT THERE TO SUPPORT THESE NEW ENDEAVORS!! As the old saying goes, you definitely have the cart (in this case electric cars) before the horse (the electrical infrastructure). An additional problem is the fact that electric car batteries don't do well in colder climates, especially in northern winters when it gets below 20 degrees and you have to run the heat inside the car. It is our understanding that the batteries discharge twice as fast in cold weather. In addition, electricity that would power the charging stations is generated by fossil fuels. We operate a farm and need fossils fuels to run our equipment. But also note that we have acres of wooded land whose trees scrub the CO2 out of the air. Maybe your focus should start with cities and suburbs rather than in rural areas. Please don't prohibit farmers from using fossil fuels. | ||
| James,Ryan | The clean energy proposal depends on NYS Utilities to deliver it. Given they are for-profit monopolies at best loosely regulated by NYS the proposal is DOA. Even NYS agrees https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/state-agencies/audits/pdf/sga-2020-18s27.pdf Image what will happen if you attempted to funnel more power through these monopolies. Solve the NYS utility and NYS PSC problem and you'll solve the Clean Energy problem! I'm happy to provide real-world tangible results of the poorly regulated environment and the impact to clean energy. | ||
| Sylvia,Hall | As a long time tax payer and citizen of NY I strongly urge that this plan be drastically modified, dates of action be extended and a more reasonable, incremental approach be taken. The timeline is way too aggressive and would infringe on the rights of citizens for no reason other than a politically motivated arbitrary date that has been set. To propose no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas in newly constructed buildings in less than two years is beyond unreasonable. It would force people out of the state, seriously impact everyone especially farmers and small business owners. The plan needs to be conceived against a backdrop of reasonable goals grounded in the reality where we all as nys citizens live our lives. | ||
| Ann,VanDewerker | The proposed plan is not viable. The electric grid can not handle the demand that would be needed to supply everyone and the costs involved would put even more New Yorkers at or below poverty level. If this is enacted even more residents will leave the state which will further lower the revenue base for New York. | ||
| Paul,Mondello | Please do everything possible to mitigate the disastrous devastation of climate catastrophe, while considering the working people, in our community, effected by industry changes. Perhaps funding retraining workers to transition from natural gas to green energy jobs, could be one possible solution. Thank You | ||
| Ira and Kathy,Share | Although electric cars might be part of the climate solution, sustainable public transportation for all with safer streets for walking and cycling can play a big role. Getting more people to safely walk and use bikes will build healthy communities but the infrastructure is heavily geared toward automobiles. The data shows that most car trips are 3 miles and under in urban areas. This is a terrible waste of our streets and land that could be used for safe walking and cycling along with strong public transportation to move people in a city center. As more bike lanes and trails open, their abundant usage makes it obvious that this is a part of our climate solution that adds many other benefits to healthy living. | ||
| Stephen,Tucker | 1. Mandating change is counter productive. A better approach is providing information, education and incentives to allow energy consumers (home, vehicles ect.) to make the best decisions for each individual situation. Example, electric vehicles have a purpose and are great in urban areas where trips are short.....not so great for long distance travel and upstate use. 2. How do you justify putting a $5-10k air source heat pump in a $5000 dollar mobile home??? Drive around the country in up-state NY and look at the condition of many homes. 3. Promoting and incentivizing weather sealing of homes with better insulation, windows ect. will do more to reduce carbon from homes than forcing people to put in heat pumps. 4. Did you know that a propane cook stove top still works during a power outage? You can light the top burners and cook food ect. No so with an electric stove unless you have a backup generator. 5. A carbon tax to force compliance is just plain wrong in every way shape and form and will hurt all people especially those that can least afford it. 6. Every form of energy has positives and negatives. You plan fails to look at the negatives from an all electric society. e.g. waste from depleted batteries, power outages, using farm land for electric generation, environmental impact ect. 7. I am opposed to ANY mandates. People are smart enough to make their own decisions. 8. I am opposed to ANY carbon taxes or additional taxes of any kind (don’t penalize those of us that have already improved our home efficiency and heating systems). 9. I am opposed to not allowing a person to choose a cook stove that matches their needs. 10 I am opposed to forcing people to heat their home using heat pumps. Let us analyze our situation, do our homework and make our own decisions. 11. I am opposed to forcing people to buy EVs. Again, let us analyze our individual situations, do our home work and make the best decision for our specific needs. 12. Please be awar | ||
| Lynn,tondrick | 350Bklyn | I support the recommendations as laid out in the Draft Scoping Plan for changes to building codes that would mandate the shift to electrified buildings. I think that prohibiting new and replacement of fossil fuel equipment is just logical and not a huge burden on the building owner. I say this as an owner of small building in Brooklyn. The Plan recommends new building codes that incorporate advanced standards for highly efficient, all-electric new construction, along with energy storage and/or onsite renewable generation that enhances building resilience. The Plan recommends regulations that prohibit the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at the end of useful life, and require the installation of energy-efficient, zero-emission equipment for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and appliances. The Plan recommends the adoption of regulations that would require existing buildings to improve their energy efficiency. All state energy codes must be aligned with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Plan specifies near-term dates for many of these changes, which is a recognition of the urgency of these recommendations. | |
| Lynn,tondrick | 350Bklyn | I have a home in rural New York. We have a septic tank. Connecting to a sewer system is not possible and highly unaffordable in a rural area like mine. We can make better use of the proposed costs . As mentioned below switching to organic waste disposal will be more efficient. While the Plan conscientiously discusses possible routes to lowering GHG emissions from solid waste water treatment, realistically this would be so difficult and waste water treatment contributes such a small volume of GHG emissions that the State would be better served by less attention to this in the short run. The Climate Action Council estimates that waste contributes 12% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from New York State and that wastewater treatment contributes 15% of that 12%, that is, less than 2% to the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the state. While not insignificant, some of the means of reducing the impact of water treatment are exceptionally expensive. Most notably, replacing septic tanks with connections to a sewer system is likely to be unaffordable for rural New York towns and small cities. Money would be better spent on other recommendations in the Plan as, for example, shifting all organic waste to composting systems. A number of recommendations in this section entail NYS support for best practices in, for example, operating wastewater treatment plants and managing sewer systems, and these we certainly support. But the Plan also admits that there is simply no data about GHG emissions for wastewater treatment facilities, so funding for studies of this issue might be appropriate. | |
| Lynn,Tondrick | 350Bklyn | I own a small building in Brooklyn and have placed solar on the roof of my building. I make far more energy than I draw. I am supplying good clean green energy to the grid of NYC. I feel great about that. However I receive no payment for this energy I supply. I have no desire to support Con Ed financially. That is exactly what I am doing at the moment due to my energy production. I do not think that is fair and it is a disincentive to others in my community who may be considering adding solar panels. The Draft Scoping Plan should recommend that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan | |
| Dan,Nicolaescu | Page 106 Update the State goal year for to 2030 NOT 2040: "Procurement targets, with appropriate funding allocated, should be established to operationalize the State’s November 2021 commitment to a zero-emission State fleet of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, where technically feasible, by 2030." | ||
| Joan,Mckeon | I support these far reaching plans to improve the cleanliness of our environment but that doesn't help me when everyone in my close packed neighborhood can BURN wood and anything else whenever they want and that smoke is toxic and the particulate matter gets in my house, lungs and bloodstream. The wood burning bullies don’t stop just because you ask them to. For some reason the law protects their right to burn crap but doesn’t care about my right to breathe air that isnt killing me. What hypocrisy! My neighborhood is filthy with fire pits and you have to make it stop!! | ||
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project, Divest NY, NR DC | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades I would like to address Chapter 16: Waste. This problem accounts for about 12% of New York’s emissions with about 78% of those emissions coming from landfills. The Scoping Plan has mandated that no organic waste goes to the landfills by 2030. Organic collection programs along with extensive composting and the use of aerobic digestion would eliminate this waste in the landfills. Well organized food donations would also curb a lot of waste. Finally, container deposit programs and the phase out of single use packaging is recommended by the plan. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Danette,Lipten | |||
| Jonathan,Brady | Climate Reality Project | My name is Jonathan Brady, and I live in the village of Elka Park, in the town of Hunter, NY, in Greene County. I am a member of the Climate Reality Project (Hudson Valley/Catskills chapter). I urge the Council to focus attention on the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, namely buildings. Put simply, we need to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels such as natural gas to heat our buildings. More specifically, we need “All Electric” building codes for new construction, and to eliminate the “100 foot rule” that keeps New Yorkers paying for new construction to be hooked up to gas infrastructure. Similarly, we need to eliminate the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand. I ask the Council to ensure we decommission natural gas infrastructure as soon as possible, and to incentivize building owners to replace oil furnaces and natural gas appliances before they wear out. In cases where those incentives are not sufficient, we need zero-emissions standards for replacing fossil fuel equipment and appliances at the end of their useful life. Importantly, we also need sufficient funds to ensure that this transition does not place an undue economic burden on consumers, particularly those who are poor or live in areas that have borne the brunt of pollution in years past. For me, all of this is extremely personal. I have two young daughters, and I think every day about the world they’re going to grow up in, what that world will look like, what opportunities will exist for them to thrive, and what aspects of the natural world will or will not survive for them to appreciate and wonder at. The best available science makes clear what we need to do; I thank the Climate Action Council for the work they are doing, and I hope and trust they will take actions strong enough and specific enough, particularly in the buildings sector, to ensure that the emissions reductions required by the CLCPA become a reality. | |
| Bruce,Johnson | The timeline and restrictions for conversion are aggressive to the point of being absurd. It relies on creating things that do not currently exist including a massive infrastructure, delivery systems and related businesses, products and the ability to produce clean electricity at an unprecedented scale. The cost of conversion will have a negative impact to residents and businesses. Build the ability to produce clean electricity and when it becomes the more viable option, people and the markets will transition naturally. To force the change in a few years is not practical and not workable. I will vote against any representative who supports this plan. | ||
| G,S | Too much - too soon - too fast. There are too many people employed within all aspects of the fossil fuel industry to mandate elimination in just a few years. Allow technology and availability to establish itself first. Wonderful and idealistic but is society able to adequately provide these changes without costing the average citizen thousands of dollars more just to comply? And has there been enough research to determine the energy and carbon used in order to implement these mandates? It's great that NY State will be the leader in saving the climate but let's be realistic at the same time. There has been enough money spent by the state in the acquisition of land. Let the conservation groups use their private funds to purchase additional easements and lands. They can always donate their acquisitiuons to the state. | ||
| alexandra,van der woerdt | nobody who has a job actually has time to read the whole thing. But anybody with common sense knows that this is a plan that was designed by big city liberals who have no clue what is happening "out there in the middle of nowhere". Yes, it is fine to suggest that city people in NYC can have "clean reliable transportation". How about people like me living on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. We are people too and whether you like it or not, we have an opinion too. I do know that our opinion does not matter in the state of New York and you will pursue your agenda anyway. but please think about those people to who your program does not really apply. Those of us who do not have the money to purchase an electrical car or a new heating system for our homes. those of us for whom public transportation will never be an option and are suffering from the high gas prices right now. And please do not tell me that there will be financial help towards achieving those goals. Because guess what, it will come back to haunt it in our taxes which are already very high in this state. And "tax corporations or high income people" does not work either because high income people are leaving the state and corporations just pass it along to consumers. consider encouraging people who own land to plant trees for carbon sequestration, that is something that I stand behind. Improve electrical cars so they will actually start in minus 20 degrees fahrenheit and can travel 500 miles and make them affordable. That I stand behind. Not through tax credits but through open market competition. There are many things that can be done if the people in rural new york are taken in consideration too. Sadly, I know all too well that the people in charge look down on people that are not highly educated and do not live in expensive cities. But guess what, they are the ones who produce your food, and in the end pay your salaries | ||
| Emily,Slomski | |||
| Kelly R,Maracle | |||
| David,Derzanovich | I am all for taking care of our natural resources & the planet in general. But we should not expect everyone to move to all electric (be it housing or car/transportation) untill the grid gets updated to handle the increasing load. We will not be at that point in the aggressive timelines now planned. California already has rolling blackouts, we will be next if planing is not revisited. Also: if the whole world is not on the same page what good does it do to have NY cripple it's economy with all of these regulations? If I listened to certain people we have 10 to 20 years left, if that is really the caes why even bother? The whole situtation would look much more legit if politics were removed. Too much do as I say not as I do. | ||
| Brittany,Gray | |||
| William,Grau | Climate Justice??? How about justice for the people of New York? We are the cleanest country in the world. If you want "Climate Justice," talk to India, China, Russia, etc. Your plan puts undue burdens on the citizens of New York. We are already taxed to the bursting point. We do not have bottomless pockets. Natural gas is clean-burning and would be inexpensive if you Democrats would allow us to gather it. Having been involved in the gas business, I know it can be done cleanly. Modern vehicles are cleaner than ever and electric cars are expensive and limited in range. Plus, manufacturing the batteries for them is environmentally damaging. Let's find better ways to help the environment than taxing and regulating us out of our homes and jobs. We can't afford any more "Climate Justice" schemes. Get back to reality and help the citizens of New York, not hurt them more. | ||
| Sydney,Lawson | Waste management is essential in today’s society. Due to an increase in population, the generation of waste is getting doubled day by day. The increase in waste is affecting the lives of many people. For instance, people living in slums are very close to the waste disposal area. Therefore there are prone to various diseases. Hence, putting their lives in danger. In order to maintain a healthy life, proper hygiene and sanitation are necessary. Consequently, it is only possible with proper waste management. Above all the most important method is the recycling of waste. This method does not need any resources. Recycling is the reusing of things that are scrapped of which is further converting waste into useful resources. Waste refers to waste of all types of resources, but especially the material resources which constitute a significant portion. Wastages are seen in all walks of life, such as improper closing off water taps, use of wood and cow dung as fuel, unnecessary turning on lights and conspicuous left over at dining tables etc. Up to about 10 to 15 percent grains in our country are eaten by birds, rats and other insects which can convert the deficit into surplus. Wastages can result in industry due to over specifications or under specifications. | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | Old methane gas generating plants should be converted to energy storage for renewables to take advantage of their grid ties and infrastructure. We can't spare the infrastructure for cryptocurrency. Also, some energy-intense cryptocurrency mining operations, such as Adam Weitsman's in Owego, do not use old gas generating plants but do use energy-intense mining methods and, at minimum, need to be regulated, taxed, and be required to pay high rates for electricity/grid use for metaverse nonsense that does not serve the common good! Thank you for your work! | ||
| Douglas,Galli | |||
| Maureen,Heilman | I'm very concerned about climate change and the effects it is having now & will have if we do not start addressing the causes right now. The loss of life and economic damages from extreme weather is not acceptable. The droughts in many areas of the country will effect agriculture and food supplies. The pollution from burning fossil fuels damages our health. The current oil crisis due to the Ukraine war & sanctions on Russia have shown us that we need to be independent of fossil fuels - not just for energy but also for fertilizer for farms. Waiting to change course will cost so much more in the long run. I don't think we can afford that! I believe the proposals made by the CAC in their Draft Scoping Plan seem reasonable and necessary. Even if the goals are set higher than some are comfortable with, I think we should aim as high as possible and get ourselves in gear to tackle this problem in a serious way immediately! Thank you, Maureen Heilman | ||
| Margaret,Sinclair | What alternative are you suggesting to replace natural gas? Please don't say electric. We all know the grid is not going to serve all the needs plus recharge all the electric cars you are pushing. Are you banning private jets in New York State? I am extremely disappointed in your plan, but then, it is NYS. | ||
| John,Rovison | Retired (VP - Research, Development & Enigneering, PeroxyChem, LLC) | While the plan is laudable for its intent and necessity, it seem to not have considered a series of unintended consequences. What if: the grid reliability does not meet extreme demands for heat and cold waves including convective, conductive and radiant heat losses; provide enough charging stations for EMVs & deal with traffic congestion during hot/cold waves consuming heating/cooling power in the EMVs resulting in traffic jams worsened by EMVs being out of power in place; loss of NG for heating in lieu of electricity (expensive alternative, especially in winter where heat pumps are insufficient for heating [over consuming power to move heat against the flow]. I had an all electric home in the 1990's that was built during the 1970's energy crisis with very good insulation and construction layout; and transitioned it to natural gas because it was too expensive to heat electrically. Home heating in a northern climate should be rethought to allow natural gas for heating combined with heat pump technology or radiant electronic heat for moderate ambient temps (40-60F) & NG for adjunct heating | |
| Heidi,Schwarz | University of Rochester Medical Cente r | Although I was not aware of the details of this plan until my local representative sent out an email and flyer, I am impressed with the forward thinking and brave proposals in this bill. I think my representative wanted his constituents to object to many of the proposals but frankly, I think action needs to be taken quickly and drastically for the protection of our environment and humanity. I know a bill has been proposed to look at the cost of these recommendations but determining cost can be done in many different ways, depending on what you want the answer to be so I am not in favor of this bill. Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure. I am hopeful that NYS moves ahead with this bold plan. | |
| Craig ,Munger | The contents of the CLCPA are commendable but unrealistic. They should not be mandatory. Natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy available. It should be a staple of energy sourcing for decades to come. Agriculture is an economic engine for NY, impacting a majority of its counties. Being and remaining profitable is important. Forcing zero-emissions burdens without there being cost benefit evaluation/justification is not the way free markets work. That same understanding of how the free markets work applies to an existing home, new home construction and one’s choice in appliances. NYS is already one of the most expensive cost-of-living and taxed states in the nation. Without there being a cost benefit to the various CLCPA mandated regulations, the economics of living and achieving a successful professional career in NYS will continue to erode. Putting timelines and mandates, ignoring free markets is a major mistake. | ||
| Ronald,Bailey | Please do not ban new natural gas appliances in existing family homes . We rely on gas for cooking heating and clothes drying. This would put a extreme burden as a retired also I am not in the position to buy an electric car. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | Based on the format of Section 17, this chapter was written to address specific issues raised by the Climate Action Council. As a result, it gets bogged down into details about specific issues raised by council members rather than looking at the big picture. In theory, a price on carbon is a great idea. The Council has not considered the theory relative to their perceptions. The estimates of current (2019) emissions coupled with the New York value of carbon yield very high revenues. The AP-NORC Center and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) survey regarding climate change included survey questions asking whether respondents would support, oppose, or neither support or oppose a law that imposed “a fee on carbon to combat climate change”. Only 45% support $1 per month per household additional costs and $1 per month per person in New York only provides revenues of $237 million. All of the projections in Table 2 estimate costs far higher than that level so I do not think the public perception of affordable will be met by any carbon pricing scheme using the New York value of carbon guidance. | |
| francis,nolan | I'm TOTALLY against this plan. NYS air and water hasn't been this clean in over 100 years. Rapid de-carbonization is a complete farce. We can't replace our current base power requirement needs for 30-50 years with current technology. We should gradually evolve in a sensible, cost-effective manner, like we are already doing. You will further destroy the NYS economy, right along with the morons in California. I say scrap the entire program, no further government, pie-in-the-sky mandates in NYS. Sincerely, FJN, MD | ||
| tane,kehlenbeck | Are you Nuts!!!!!. This climate plan is nuts it will cost me alone at least 20.000 just to update my heating system in my house. Those dates you have are way to close. Are power grid can not handle this amount of electric use right now. So once again your Nuts!!!!!!! | ||
| S,Kyle | As usual, these are short sighted solutions to long-term problems. Where will they be setting up these large fields of non recyclable lithium battery farms? How will it effect the agriculture community, which outside of NYC is a lot of what New York State does? How much of the "power" generated will be used for NYC? Most of our power goes to them now as it is while our cities and towns struggle with energy costs. What kind of compensation will land-owners receive as a result of a government agency destroying natural forest and farm land to "plant" these "energy farms". Have there been long-term studies of the side effects of living near or around these types of "energy farms". What is the social and environmental impact of this? Decarbonizing our future is not an acceptable answer. What will happen to those lithium batteries after they have reached the end of their life? How and where will they be disposed? How will the inevitable breakdown of these energy farms be handled when there is a bad snow storm or weather event. What resources are in place to keep people safe and warm? NY has a lot of pretty epic snowstorms. How much will this cost in taxpayer dollars? NY has the some of the highest taxes in the nation. Why not do something at the coast of NYC instead of destroying farm and forest in the rest of the state? NYC is the real problem. The rest of the state is clean and beautiful I believe that the proposal is short sighted and it is the least "green" thing you can do. It destroys farm land, which reduces jobs and products. It destroys forests, which creates the oxygen we all need to breathe- in addition to the impact it has on conservation of thousands of birds, bugs, mammals, fish, and migratory animals. It changes the landscape that supports a lot of life to only support one function of our lives, and that is incredible selfish to think the beauty of the land around us is here only to serve us. | ||
| Emily,Underwood | Mileage-based user fees. I live in rural upstate new york, where I commute 30 miles each way to another rural town for work everyday. There is no public transportation, there is literally no other way for me to transport myself to my place of employment without driving. Mileage-based user fees are a TERRIBLE idea. All it does is punish people because they use the only option at their disposal. And the people who are being punished are among the lowest paid, in the poorest areas, with the fewest advantages in the state. Why do I live 30 miles away from my job, you ask? Simple, that's where I could find housing--and it isn't even affordable. While efficient and fast public transportation is being brought to rural upstate New York, what are you going to do to bring down the cost of electric vehicles so that working class people can afford them? Have you ever cooked on a gas range? Gas ranges are the best! You have so much control over the temperature and strength of the flame. When you turn it off the heat goes away, so the burner doesn't stay hot for ages like electric burners. Electric ranges can't even compare. I will pick a gas range every time over an electric one. As you prevent higher quality ranges from being installed in homes and businesses what are you going to do to ensure that the benefits of gas cooking are still available? How are you going to change electric ranges so that they function as well as gas ones? How can the minute amount of gas savings really be worth all the inconvenience? I have yet to see a thorough and complete cost-benefit analysis for this plan. One needs to be done. How much is this going to cost tax-payers and how much inconvenience? How are you preventing the lower and middle income people from bearing the brunt of this burden and being disproportionately affected? | ||
| LuAnn ,Tierney | I wholeheartedly support your plans to reduce the carbon footprint on our planet. Currently, we are not doing enough. One of my fears for our children future is climate change. We need to aggressively pursue ways to mitigate this. Again, I wholeheartedly support these policies. | ||
| Robert,Bragg | Reject proposed plans to eliminate gas fueled appliances and no gas automobiles by 2035 | ||
| Nick,Argetsinger | The entire report is a very-well written piece by professional lawmakers who have failed to consider one thing -- it's COLD in New York in the winter. As a 30-year property manager with a lot of experience with heat pumps, I can tell you that from December - February - at least in central New York - heat pumps cost a fortune to run and don't heat properly UNLESS the backup system is fired by some type of fuel that has a flame (natural gas or even propane). They're great as shoulder season heating appliances (fall and spring), but the efficiency of the heat pump drops a LOT below freezing. When we experience daytime highs in the 20's and lows below 0 the heat pump will rely completely on the backup system. If that backup is a typical electric "toaster" system the cost is prohibitive; plus the home is miserably cold and clammy. I didn't read enough of the plan to find out if propane backups would be allowed but if not, you'll have a lot of VERY unhappy taxpayers that - combined with all the other negatives we face living here - will simply move to happier places. I'm also not sure how the plan will affect the home appliance industry with respect to replacing and repairing existing gas furnaces. If I have to replace the two in my 3,800-sqft home with an all-electric heat pump the house will be too cold to live in. | ||
| Christian,Smith | The concept of going green is positive. The unrealistic process of zero emissions is not. The cost of doing so in such a short period of time will place our communities in grave danger. Our "Citizens" lives and their health should not be placed in such jeopardy. Each new phase comes with risk, however those risks should be well thought out and not acted upon in such a wasteful approach, especially when it comes to the livelihood and tax dollars of each New York "Citizen". The ability to sustain such a concept will ultimately lead to numerous shortfalls which in turn will be destructive to the lives of our neighbors, families and friends. It is clear though that the government of New York is enthusiastically searching new means of taxation on this money making process in ways to ensure each "Citizen" pays for their share. Going green has already proven many unsuccessful stories at great cost. There is no well defined reason for moving to New York in this plan in such a short time. Businesses only see a higher cost to produce here due to unrealistic requirements. Take the time to do this right and be proud of it, this isn't about you and being in the spotlight as represented in the draft scoping plan. | ||
| Eleanore,Moses | WIND AND SOLAR PANELES ARE A WASTE OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS. THEY WILL NOT PR0DUCE ENOUGH POWER TO ACCOMMADATE ALL THE DEMANDS OF NY . THE GREEN CLIMATE PEOPLE ARE RUSHING INTO THESE CHANGES TOO FAST. TAXES ARE HIGH ENOUGH NOW. THE PEOPLE OF NY STATE NEED A BREAK | ||
| Brian,Schultz | I reject these changes because it is obvious the we need Gas and electric to continue being supplied to homes and cars. Converting homes to all electric means that if and when the power grid goes down, we will have complete blackout with serious rioting and vandalism. Additionally I have no confidence that we can produce enough Electricity to support homes/buildings/industries and vehicles. The infrastructure is not in place, and the state can not afford the cost to implement. Lastly, why do we have many past politicians and presidents with large estates and properties if they truly believe that we have a climate crisis? | ||
| P,Loomis | Please do not implement adding more solar arrays in Madison County. Madison County has an agricultural base. It is mostly used for agribusiness which supports the entire country. Do not destroy our economy by removing our tillible land. Why don't you put solar panels on top all the buildings in New York City? Large warehouses like Amazon's should also have solar panels on their flat roofs. That would make much more sense. And, it would not destroy any land, keeping our state green and beautiful! Please reconsider your idea. Thank you. | ||
| John ,Clark | I believe the CLCPA does not really have a plan. They are just jumping on the latest fad. How much is all this going to cost New Yorkers? How much are any of these plans going to really change anything? How much is the electricity going to cost? What happens to all the spent batteries that can't be recycled? I think there are too many changes, too quickly. AND I can not help thinking that some pockets are being lined. | ||
| Jessica,Glaser | Hello everyone who is working on this plan, I would like to tell you that you're RIGHT ON and I hope that you're able to implement this plan!! I am very excited about decarbonizing our economy and moving toward sustainability! The only thing I would ask you to really keep in mind is helping the poorest in both urban and rural areas to access subsidies and navigation in converting their homes from fossil fuels to carbon neutral. It's going to be much harder for them, and they are not going to have a lot of extra capacity to do research and access vendors for quotes. Blessings as you continue this important work!! | ||
| Thomas,Maturski | The idea of eliminating the usage of natural gas and replacing it with electricity options is not only a recipe for disastrous inflation but it will not address climate change. What is not being shared ina truthful manner is how electricity is generated. Over 70% of electricity is generated from power plants that use natural gas. Other alternative energy forms are not developed to sustain current energy demands. Solar energy does not have the year round capacity to be a substitute and wind energy is also not efficient nor available in quantity to replace natural gas. Usage of batteries is expensive and storage capacities have limitations that prevent them from working effectively over long-term periods of time. An example of this is electric vehicles. Every battery charge reduces the maximum capacity of the battery. This will require battery replacement which is expensive. Additionally, recycling of these batteries is not yet available for mass quantities. You are actually adding to the damage to our environment. The electric grid is also not able to handle the added use, especially when more people do transition to electric or hybrid electric vehicles. We are facing the highest inflation in 40 years. This natural gas elimination law will very likely double the inflation percentage. The goal should be to advocate for more efficient natural gas appliances, not eliminating them. This legislation has far reaching negative implications on everything from farming, food costs, housing costs, utility costs, and the ability for people to live their lives while constantly worrying about if they can afford to live in New York state. You are likely to see the greatest exodus of people leaving the State than ever seen in history. Maybe this is your plan. As a New York state resident who was born and raised here, I cannot believe that a small group of politicians can have the power to negatively impact millions of peoples lives with this item | ||
| Lynda,John | LYNDA W JOHN | As a senior citizen, I am extremely concerned about the cost of my electricity rising. I just can't afford that and keep my home. | |
| michael,kouf | this whole thing will put an undo burden on all ny people mainly the retired etc on fixed income. while the goal is climate control or so u say in reality it will have almost no impact whatsoever the us has a minor impact compared to the rest of the world so putting all those new rules on ny will only hurt us not help i myself do not have the money to convert to electric let alone the electric grid can not handle the load you want to put on it we will end up with rolling blackouts etc so stop it now | ||
| John,Beca | Transition away from carbon needs to address availability of alternate power and accessibility of same. The current electrical grid will not support this plan. There are insufficient charging stations nationwide. Currently most panels are made in China…do we support an authoritarian nation to reach our goals. Most metals for batteries come from China. How do we safely recycle all of these gigantic car batteries. Do we further poison the earth. While we try to go green, China continues to pollute the environment. Go green but go slow. Invest in new technologies and research to find better solutions than electricity and batteries. | ||
| John,Barnes | The objectives of this plan are unreasonable, unrealistic, and unacceptable. Instead of jamming policy down the throats of NY residents. Although I do not oppose working to integrate alternative energy sources, wholesale elimination of affordable energy sources is a recipe for disaster. In my opinion, NY legislators are not accurately reflecting the interests of New York residents. | ||
| Blair,Hoover | Our climate in New York is unpredictable for solar and wind power to be relied on. We have too much ice and snow so we need fossil fuel to maintain a good supply of electricity. Ice destroyed power lines and towers in the North country a few years back. Ice took out windmills in Texas I think in 2021 and look how long it to rebuild them. We need natural gas and propane for heating, cooking and backup generators. Just a few of my thoughts. Blair Hoover | ||
| SHARON,KOCHMANSKI | RETIRED | TOTALLY disagree to all electric appliances, cars, homes etc. The conversion costs outweigh the benefits. Clean fossil energy would employ thousands of engineers, chemists, environmentalists etal to see that our energy is clean and safe. I vote no. | |
| Mike,Gugliuzza | The whole idea is crazy. Stop pushing people out of New York State. Try bringing business and people back. Work on spending less and lowering taxes do something worthwhile | ||
| Maryellen,Royce | How insulting to the public that you publish a 300+ page document and only allow 2000 characters in response. | ||
| James,Salerno | You can't fix 150 years of polluting in 25 to 30 years. It can't be done with electricity from windmills and solar panels. They can never make enough electricity to fill the needs of this state or country for that mater. Who is going to pay for it? The Middle class. Electric cars are too expensive to buy and repair and can't go far enough on a charge. Even if you put in all the plugs needed, where are you going to get the electricity needed? Poor people will be most affected because they can't afford it. My electric bill is too high now to go all electric heating. What will I do with my brand new furnace I put in last year? You elected officials sit in your office and concoct these ideas with no idea of how to implement these ideas and the cost and affect of to ordinary people that elected you. You are moving too fast with no feasible plan. It took over 50 years to replace horses with the automobile. You can't expect to go all electric in such a short time. I'm all for saving the planet but lets do it in a practical way. | ||
| Daniel,Brooks | Limiting natural gas access will not reduce emissions of toxic gases, particulates or carbon. Limiting natural gas will only encourage use of wood, propane, oil and electrical resistance for domestic heat and hot water. Natural gas is the cleanest and most reliable source of energy for homes. Using electricity for heating is far less efficient than combustion of natural gas in a high efficiency appliance. Finally, if all these restrictions are imposed on the citizens of NY, what will be the net effect on the average temperature? | ||
| Rod,Howe | Town of Ithaca | ||
| Janoah,Atwater | Please reject the new energy plans for the sake of families and businesses that are working hard at living healthy growing lives for the next generation. You should not be determining our choices of the variety of energy we have to choose from so that we can afford to feed, house, clothe and care for our families, young and old! | ||
| James ,Schaertl | I see No mention of what financial impact this will have on the NY taxpayers! It’s my belief this will only force citizens to leave NY and go to less oppressive States. We must end these Leftist policies if NY is to Survive. Thanks, Jim | ||
| Nadine,Turner | As per the document summary: -Costs are a small share of New York’s economy: 0.6-0.7% of GSP in 2030 and 1.4% in 2050 -As a share of current overall system expenditures, costs are moderate: 9-11% in 2030 and 25-26% in 2050 These short term costs are too high for the much longer term benefits that are stated. I do NOT agree to invest our funds in this climate action plan and want this plan to be REJECTED. The unrealistic goals and the cutting off of energy supplies are more reasons I REJECT this plan. There are other options less invasive and I ask our representatives to look into those. | ||
| Bruce,Christensen | Your plan is ludicrous. It will only drive more people out of NY, and put more businesses out of business, especially farmers who are already struggling to stay in business in this over regulated state. Not everyone is a billionaire. | ||
| Warren,Luick | Please REJECT the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. It is a recipe for disaster and complete insanity! | ||
| Robert,Lehman | Hasn't New York policy done enough to increase our taxes, burden our businesses and drive people and businesses from the state? Continue working in baby steps. We feel we need to be the leader in everything, which also makes us the leader in taxes and expenses for our residents. Lets pump the brakes on expensive programs, get our costs back down, and concentrate on getting armed police officers in our schools, take guns away from mentally unstable people and protect our citizens physically and in their wallets to make them want to stay here before we go spending money and forcing our citizens and business to spend money on green initiatives. We want to protect the environment before we have figured out a way to protect our citizens and their rights. Apparently the environmental issues are buried in the sand as the ostriches in albany certainly have their heads buried in sand and seem to think this issue is greater than others. | ||
| Louise,Clark | I expect that first you make NY City Manhattan go totally green. No Gas in Manhattan. All Manhattan skyscrapers must have solar on roofs. All Manhattan signs must be only lighted by solar. All Manhattan apartments must RIP out gas heat and Stoves immediately. No gas helium Macey parade balloons either. Yep make NY city Manhattan your shining example !!! Do you take the challenge??? Dare ya!!! Ha Ha Ha . Us New York residents are in financial recession pain. Sky high prices, shortages of so many things. These days are not pleasant and your energy plans are quarantined to create a MAJOR MAJOR HUGE NEGATIVE CRISIS. | ||
| Gretchen,Worth | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment | |
| Nancy,Seligson | My name is Nancy Seligson and I live in Larchmont, NY. I support strong climate action and want to see NY transition to a clean economy by 2050. In order to achieve this goal, we must stop the expansion of the fossil fuel infrastructure in our state. I support a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction and investment in retrofitting existing homes. In Larchmont and Mamaroneck, we have experienced extreme flooding due to extensive impermeable surfaces, especially pavement, and a reduction in tree canopy. I support afforestation and reforestation and encourage attention to the needs of urban and very developed suburban areas in the final plan. I support the draft scoping plan’s focus on reducing organic waste, including by expanding the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law. The final scoping plan should include more detail on how the State will work with municipal governments to develop their own organic waste recycling programs, including a timeline for when all New Yorkers will have access to organic waste recycling. I support Extended Producer Responsibility and product stewardship programs to reduce waste, increase recycling including batteries of all types, and require producers to cover the costs of the end-of-life management of their products. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | ||
| Joyce,Jensen | I agree that we should be looking into renewable sources of energy and ways to reduce emissions, however, I would like to see how the cost of this is calculated and how we are going to be able to have sufficient sources of affordable electricity going forward given that we have issues creating enough electricity now. I would love to be able to afford to live here the remainder of my life and to see the younger generations afford to live here as well, but obviously this will raise the costs and offer no competition to allow any choice of energy source! I currently use propane for water heating and ccASHP for heating and cooling but, because the ccASHP installer was not on a required list I was unable to get any rebate for its installation!! The installer on the list has done prior UNSATISFACTORY work in my home so I did not even consider him for this installation. I would feel concerned that this may be an issue going forward if new construction and retrofitting was required under this plan as well. I totally support the legislation (A.7524A) that would require a cost benefit analysis be done. | ||
| Thomas,Roman | While I encourage the development of things like hydrogen powered vehicles, I would like to see the INCREASED use of natural gas and resources to LOWER current energy costs of living in NY. Your unproven ideas are HURTING everyday taxpayers who are punished for living in this state. Start working on my behalf of all citizens. When cars came into use, no one did away with horses. Use a smarter and SLOWER transition. | ||
| Willis ,Bienvenue | You won’t have to look for me living in New York State and putting up with this nonsense much longer. If you want the state to go emission free and expect me to pay an additional tax for driving over a set amount of miles you won’t have me living here. I presently am living in Florida 5-6 months each winter and will not be here for you to take advantage of with your ridiculous emissions plan. Going to make my full time residency in a RED State. So sad taxation without equal representation. Our state representatives had better wake up and prevent this nonsense. Willis Bienvenue I | ||
| Hannah,Blue | You cannot force people to completely change their forms of transportation and methods of heating homes, and use of appliances in homes. This is something my family cannot afford. These forced changes that you plan to simply put into law are not what the average family income can afford. These new laws could force our family to leave NYS, the state we have always called home, because we can no longer afford to live here. Do not pass this Climate Act. It is unfair and it does not take all income levels into consideration. | ||
| Cheryl,lyon | The proposal for no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings, no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035 will make power unaffordable and will create another area where new york state government can control its citizens. I am against this and do not want to see if approved for my state. By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany Bureaucrats are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. We are experiencing an energy affordability crisis with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills, and the highest gas prices on record. Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden everyday New Yorkers. I DO NOT WANT THIS!! YOU WILL DRIVE MORE PEOPLE OUT OF NEW YORK | ||
| Jeffrey,Burg | You guys are off your rockers if you think that we can fully get rid of fossil fuels in the time frame you are talking about! The electric grid cannot handle the load that your are proposing to put on it. Renewable energy cannot sustain New Yorker’s to the extent that your are planning. Where is all this electricity coming from?? Who’s paying for all of this? Why are you doing this to us! I just hope you don’t wonder why people are leaving New York! You need a much longer time frame to SLOWLY implement this plan! I am not against the idea of alternative energy sources, but we need more time and R&D!! What is your plan when a GOP president is elected in 2024 and undoes all the bonehead things the current administration has burdened us with? The Democratic Party is in trouble for midterms! Another thing that has gotten lost in politics is you are here to serve us, I don’t work for you, you work for me!!!! | ||
| Mark,Rieker | Just Your Type | This country is in sad shape with the liberals in charge. This is a prime example of why one party cannot be in control. Our Democrats need to be charged with treason! They have done nothing good for the United States or it's people. They are bought and paid for to create a new world order. | |
| Renee,Thomas | Private tax payer | Please stop this insanity! We do not have the infrastructure in place to support this transaction to electric. I’m all for greener practices but we have to be smart about it and make sure we have a solid foundation before you cripple all of us. Especially those of us that are already struggling in rural areas. Listen to your constituents please Kindly Renee Thomas and family | |
| Samuel,Roeland | Me myself and I | I believe the whole plan is guided by demonic forces intent on destroying the United States. NY legislature and governor are merely pawns in the scheme to accomplish that end. The footprint is a lie. Jet-setting self appointed "eco-warriors" tell the lies enough times that then everyone is suppose to believe it. 2000 words is not enough space to adequately critique this "plan". May God have mercy on your souls for perpetrating the largest scam in world history. Sam | |
| Michelle,Gawel | I disagree with what you are trying to do!!!!! By 2024, they want no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings. Additionally, they want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035. By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany Bureaucrats are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. Put frankly: It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. | ||
| Linda,Didona | This is the most ridiculous plan I have read, I am so sick of your climate nonsense, there are way more important issues this country needs to address. It must of been democraps who came up with this plan, wake up and start doing your job. | ||
| Jean,Cirone | New York always gets carried away with saying we’re going to be the first and the best in the country and I hate it I absolutely do. That is not what we need. We need to be able to afford to live our lives. I cannot believe you are moving forward with this huge plan to move towards an Electric future. I look at California where they have brown outs continually in the summer. You’re putting the horse before the cart. We do not have the infrastructure and the ability to switch so quickly to the kind of future you envision. Nor can we afford it. I am a retired teacher and there is no way on this green earth that I can buy an electric car. I also don’t want to have to stop every 300 miles and charge up for six hours to go someplace. Think about the inflation we’re having a now and think about what this will do to the truckers bringing in our groceries! We are not going to be able to afford to buy rice! I think the plan is wrong for this time of our lives. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong !!!!! | ||
| Daniel,Nickeson | I urge Assemblyman Jeff Gallahan to drop his co-sponsorship of A.7524A for further analysis of costs of this plan. Short term costs have no comparison to long term gain. A cleaner future - or even one as clean as when Gallahan was raised - is the least we can provide for our children. And whatever the cost, it is our responsibility to clean up the mess we made before we leave this planet. | ||
| Kenneth,Rombaut | This change to stop the use of natural gas is the wrong thing to do. Natural gas is clean and the electrical grid is not large enough to support this change from natural gas This is just an extra cost to the NYS taxpayers | ||
| Randy,Walter | Your plan sounds like something a child might makeup. You need to completely rethink this and consider just how ridiculous the whole plan sounds and the cost of such a plan would cost New Yorkers. You really need to start thinking about everyone you are supposed to represent and not just yourselves. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THIS FARCE OF A PLAN OR WHAT EVER you call it. Randy Walter | ||
| Benjamin,Hughes | You will never save the world by oppressing the citizens of N.Y. State . These actions are simply unrealistic and will further drive residents out of N.Y. State. Your ideas are perfectly insane and will do nothing to help Climate Change when other country's pollute FAR more than the USA. Your ideas are nothing more than advancing the WEF, NWO, Biden Agenda. I suggest you forget your entire agenda and be prepared to be voted out of elected office. Thank you for your time. | ||
| William,Clemons | I think it’s wrong that New York State is trying to implement these changes in the laws with natural gas in fuel burning cars I think that it’s time to get out of New York State taxes are getting out of control telling you what vehicle you can drive and what you cannot it’s time to leave the state The state has stopped working for the people that they were elected to work for years ago Move south like thousands of other people are doing so long have a good day | ||
| Leon,Porter | Citizens Climate Lobby--NY Southern F inger Lakes | Please see the attached letter. It recommends modifying the plan to end state fossil-fuel tax subsidies, to prohibit local single-fa mily zoning and minimum parking requirements, and to implement a state-level carbon tax with income tax credit. Thanks, Leon | has attachment |
| Carmen,Farabella | How does this help the country or the world? If everyone in the world is not on board this will not work. And please don't say "this is a start" because I've heard that all my grown up life and at 70 years old I'm still not seeing change. The only people who will benefit are the electric company mogule, their lobbyist, and their political partners. | ||
| Kate,Ogden | SEVENTH GENERATION, INC. | ||
| Jim,C | Bring back all fossil fuels. This whole green new deal is just BS. | ||
| Donna,Smith | How are N.Y. residents supposed to pay and how much will it cost to implement these changes? What happens to lithium batteries when no longer usuable? We already pay user fees on various highwys and bridges!! We need to see a cost benefit analysis on each proposal. 2024 is too soon to stop use of natural gas and what happens the businesses that provide this gas? What happens to the appliance dealers?? Farmers have many hardships now, how willthey afford to implement the changes?? | ||
| James,Kowalski | Your plans are unrealistic. Who is going to pay for changeover of my home and autos from natural gas and gasoline? I am on a fixed income and can’t afford such huge expenses. How can you mandate such changes without first having viable and affordable alternatives in place? Your goals are admirable but your arbitrary timelines are ridiculous and will place an unreasonable and frankly, impossible burden on the citizens of New York. I don’t want to hear about loans being available to accomplish this. I would have no way to repay such loans since my entire FIXED INCOME is barely enough to pay for my medicines and current living expenses. Rethink your timelines and your financing before mandating such burdensome plans for the future of New York State. As usual, New York’s so-called leaders are choosing to do what is politically expedient without being in touch with the needs and capabilities of its citizens. | ||
| Lisa,Serron | I was distressed by the recent mailing from Jeff Gallahan. In particular, the summary of "what's in the plan" contained some very unsettling issues. In a beautiful state such as New York, where there is room to roam and wonderful sites to see that are so spread apart, why would you ever consider "implementing mileage-based user fees to discourage driving"? Many parts of New York rely on tourists and such a plan would surely discourage people from moving freely around the state. And that is not even bringing to the forefront the penalty this would put on people who live in rural areas, people who have no choice but to drive to get from place to place. I thought NY was trying to keep people from fleeing the state, not giving them more reason to leave. I guess I misunderstood. | ||
| Vern,Hecker | As I understand, your goals to reduce fuel usage starting 2024, and apparently replace with electric. Currently during peak usage consumers are encouraged to cut usage of electric. Also I don't know of any new electric generation plants being planned for construction. Where is this electricity coming from and will it be environmentally friendly ? | ||
| Charmaine,Grandin | I believe trying to turn the entire state from fossil fuel to electric heat, cars , ect. Is a disastrous idea! It is going to put a grater Financial burden on New York State residence than what we are already paying. We are the highest taxed state in the entire nation already along with California. By doing this you are going to make it unaffordable for many more thousands of New York residence to continue to reside here. It is a disastrous idea. I sincerely hope you would consider the effect it will have as a whole Financially especially for senior citizens who are on fixed income. I know many more of us are already looking at properties and other states because of this. | ||
| fred,miller | It is a huge mistake to have the state regulate something as important as energy. You have no idea the amount a misery you will cause. | ||
| fred,miller | |||
| Gary,Hartman | Eliminating gas is not the answer. It puts more burden on an electrical grid system that is not ready or will be ready to handle to new loads. There are many technologies that rely on gas heat for their existence and when will those be developed and who is going to pay the expense for their development and implementation. The idea of eliminating gas for autos in 2035 is another example of the wrong direction given the electrical grids. They are already experiencing many issues in the European market due to the electrical vehicles consuming more than the grid can produce. And the batteries for the vehicles not only contain hazardous materials to manufacture the batteries, but where is the plan for the disposal of these batteries (besides landfills). Let alone the issues of traveling and car fires that have been seen many times with electrical vehicles. But NY always thinks it knows best and but these measures will drive more people away from NY. | ||
| Robert and Dorene,Hopkins | resident | Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report of biblical proportions. My better half, wife, spouse..(Am I allowed to say wife in public? I'm not sure.) and I have read the 331 pages of Scoping Plan from start to finish. ( It was about a 4 week read.) Our comments are listed below. On the plus side, many of these ambitious plans have merit and could be implemented given the proper time frame....100 years? Many of these plans could be implemented over time if presented properly and fellow New Yorkers were given a choice. On the negative side, the whole plan is being forced upon all residents of this state. "The CJWG supports finding compromise around local control while achieving State targets and emphasizes the need for community education and engagement to inform New Yorkers about the climate crisis and the benefits of shifting to a clean energy economy." P.162 Winter emergencies are given a short nod (P.170). Nuclear power possibilities are given a short nod (P. 187). Etc., etc..... Banning lawnmowers, oil burning home furnaces, gas stations...etc., etc. ... I moved to Windsor in 1981...what a beautiful part of this great state. Married, kids, grandkids..... I retired last year after 39 years with NY Telephone/Verizon. I never thought of ever leaving here, but this plan may force us to find a more citizen friendly state. We will continue to pray for our leaders for wisdom and guidance. Thank you, Bob and Dorene Hopkins | |
| William,Lyon | More consideration needs to be given on the actual ultimate cost to all consumers in the state. What benefit will there be for low income working and/or retired fixed income residents. Does the cost justify the means How will residents be able to afford NEW appliances and/or heating units. Is the STATE of NEW YORK ready and WILLING to cover the MANDATED expense to ALL residents. My opinion is New York Government cannot and will not cover any expense to residents no matter their monetary status. Where does this program stand at this point??? | ||
| Joan,Brewer | The proposed ideas for green energy in NY will cripple the economy and be worst for those who can least afford it. Being led by the people who really will never be affected by these proposals is not the American democratic way. The price of electric cars and the inconvenience of having to keep them charged is beyond most Americans budgets and patience. I have traveled to places like China, Eastern Europe, Russia where pollution is so bad is was impossible to see the street in Beijing from a 12th floor room. Those places need to clean up their pollution before we worry about it. At almost 90 years of age, I have lived through a Depression in the 1930s , WW 2, and so on. Those of my generation know how to save, conserve, reuse, cook, and so on. I daresay the younger generations could learn a thing or two from us about not polluting! | ||
| Blake,Thalacker | A detailed cost analysis is not provided. How will all these projects be funded? What is the impact to State Income, Fuel, Local, and Sales tax rates? Electricity generated by wind and solar are much higher than fossil fuel and nuclear generation. What is the expected impact to electric rates over time? What is the future gross power generation demand and will additional wind and solar capability be sufficient to meet the demand, or will carbon free nuclear power be needed to fill the gap? | ||
| Angela,Blackley | In a nut shell: Keeping short and sweet. Our economy and our lifestyles are NOT ready to incorporate a change in our energy infrastructure! This plan will destroy our economy and the little bit of income people have coming in. Most companies are not even fully staffed and can not afford the changes that are planned. | ||
| John,Magin | Man induced climate change is the biggest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American people. The climate has been changing ever since the earth was created, temps go up and down. There was a spike in temps during the middle ages which we couldn't have created. | ||
| William,Bombard | This is a waste of time. The climate is warming because the Earth is slowly being pulled closer to the sun. This is the reason for Mars missions. To colonize further away from the sun. Rather than telling the truth for fear of alarming the population, the goal is to distract with the populace with fake remedies while the Mars missions go forward to save extinction of the human race. Unfortunately only the elite will save themselves and their families by living on Mars while the masses burn up in future generations. The truth will come out soon and global warming will be BIG problem for reasons other than the illusion of green technology to save Earth. | ||
| Dale,Lum | The DEC currently maintains data on the location of unplugged orphaned and abandoned gas wells. In addition, the New York Works Well Plugging Initiative (NYWWPI) has been responsible for plugging some of these wells. Unplugged wells may be emitting substantial amounts of methane, but the DEC apparently does not have a monitoring program in place to quantify the magnitude of these leaks. In addition, the DEC told me that methane emissions is not one of the criteria used to prioritize their plugging of wells. Given the high greenhouse gas potential of methane, I believe that plugging orphaned and abandoned gas wells could be a very cost effective way of helping to meet New York's climate goals. My suggestions are: 1) Improve data collection to quantify the magnitude of fugitive methane emissions from abandoned and orphaned gas wells 2) Ensure that methane emissions are part of the scoring rubric used by the DEC to prioritize the NYWWPI 3) Allocate more budget to the DEC to accelerate NYWWPI | ||
| Jeffrey,Baes | baes | The purposed changes to the use of natural gas and petroleum product for auto and home heating is the most reliable and cost effective choices we have to date. By limiting new builds to no natural gas appliance is allowed to go through you are going to make it next to impossible for the average to low income resident of this state to afford to reside here. Leave the decision as to how we live our life with the people and lead by example not by political party majority. OUR ELECTRICAL GRID IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT ALL ELECTRIC EVERTHING TO MAKE IT WORK IT WILL DRIVE PRICES SO HIGH WE CAN SUPPORT OUR SELFS. THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE WITH OUT PEOPLE TO PAY FOR YPUR IDEAS. | |
| Sherie,Pickering | We are at an all time high with gas prices in our country with youth and those on fixed incomes unable to manage with these prices. After living through the isolation of Covid, the cost of gas is creating more isolation for the most vulnerable groups of people -- youth and the elderly. Please hear us and do not take away gas as a source of fuel. There are so many people who will be unable to purchase a no-gas automobile by 2035. You are not thinking of the masses of people this will impact. We are not all rich. The majority of middle class live paycheck to paycheck and do not have the overabundance of money that this will create the need for them to have. Please think about the majority of people this will impact and it will certainly be the majority especially with all of the people flocking into our country. They will have low paying jobs and they will need support of the government in order to have the necessities. This will add to their hardship. Home heating costs are also on the rise. You will NEVER be able to build the infrastructure to have all electric vehicles. Do not cut off our dependable sources of energy for our country. Please think not of just yourselves and your family. Think of our country -- the wholeness of our country before you make decisions that could be our demise. Thank you. | ||
| Martin ,Gruber | At what point will the stupidity stop and common sense take over. The power grid in NY can’t handle when the temperature rises periodically now and you want to add to it. I can see it now don’t plug you electric car in when the temperature goes above 80 because we all are turning on the AC after those of us who work get home. I’d like to go on vacation but I need 3 weeks to get there because I have to stop every 400 miles to charge up and then who’s back yard do we bury all the dead batteries in when there life is out or the wind mill part when there life limit is up. Save the air and contaminate the ground. Forget about growing food or drinking the water . Can we please look at the whole picture and not just the special interest groups narrow vision. | ||
| Bojan,Karastojanovski | Please Stop ruining this beautiful state! | ||
| Matt,Mackey | Keep it up! We need to switch to renewable energy sources and get away from over-consumption of oil and gas! We'll never totally eliminate it but if we move away from using oil we actually become even more energy independent and are not under the control of ridiculous oil speculation and production controls set by OPEC! | ||
| Joe,Gugino | I am totally opposed to your plan to eliminate natural gas as an energy source for my home. Your plan will make it absolutely unaffordable to continue to live in New York state. To convert to all electric is insane especially with our cold climate. My house does not have sufficient amperage service to do that. It would cost tens of thousands of dollars just to upgrade my service. To convert my heating to all electric is ridiculously expensive plus the monthly electric costs would be unaffordable. Given that few if any other states are doing anything like this, your net impact on the global climate will be nothing. Huge pain and costs for nothing. We will be forced to move out of the state due to nonsense like this. | ||
| Denise,Gugino | Unaffordable. I will be forced to move out of the state. Period. | ||
| William L,Neidlinger | I think this plan is awesome! I just installed solar panels on my roof to do my part. Most of my friends would like to do the same but they can't afford renewables. Please help with the up front costs of this plan! | ||
| David,Underwood | waterloo baptist church, waterloo, ny 13165 | I do not support any part of this initiative. I think it is bad science, bad economics, bad politically. It will financially crush many of us who can not afford what the green energy policies are doing now. | |
| Robert,Uhle | As we can see the current policies on climate change are the main basis for the runaway inflation that is killing the low income, senior and middle class citizens on these United States. Politicians have completely lost touch with the people that they were sworn to protect. these cost mean nothing to them because of higher class of income they are in. Current cost of things like gas ,groceries ,utilities ,housing ,daycare and a host of others are easily absorbed into there daily routines. This country has begone to go down a path to destroy the lower income earners and cater to no-one else but the rich and powerful. We are literally raping our senior citizens that built this country by making everyday necessities out of reach. Shame on all of you | ||
| Daniel,Kinney | Stony Brook University | Traffic laws need to be enforced. Speeders add to emissions and an increase in gas use. The new SLEEP Act is a good piece of legislation, but it is not enforced. An example is Stony Brook Village. which is visited by families because of its museums, nature preserves, harbor, etc., but it has been taken over by speeders. The enforcement of traffic laws is a low-hanging fruit that would greatly improve the quality of life and the health and safety of its residents. That is something that can be done now. | |
| Rosemary ,Kowalski | Although I agree with the need to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, I feel that this plan is premature and overreaching. How can you plan to eliminate natural gas services before having the ability to make enough clean electricity to replace it? This would place a huge burden on homeowners. My home is heated by gas, and I have all gas appliances ( stove, hot water heater and clothes dryer). Being on a fixed income it would be impossible to replace the appliances and the entire heating system. With the economy in it’s current state, we can barely afford our medications. Please think of your constituents before implementing this terrible plan. | ||
| Jay,Belke | To whom it may concern: This proposal has many good ideas in it, but lacks realistic insight into the impact on both the environment and the citizens of New York State. It is clear that fossil fuels are a finite supply, and that we must adapt to other fuel sources. However, we must take the time to research how something can be put into place, and what real-world consequences will result from this. It is inappropriate to make a knee-jerk reaction based on vague public opinion in order to satisfy voters. Evaluation of the plan, chapters 9 & 10, only covers benefits of the plan. In order to fully evaluate anything, you must also look at the risks entailed, and by not even considering these, you make it clear that you want to push this through with childish optimism, not with the thoughtfulness required of working in the real world. Have you considered the environmental impact, cost, and availability of resources required in order to convert all energy to renewable sources? That does not seem to be the case. Do you know what natural resources are even required to do so, and where they can be sourced from? The elimination of natural gas for home appliances seems particularly egregious. Do you know that in most cases, these are far more efficient than their electrical counterparts? At the rate described here, will residents be forced to switch to electric appliances when the demand for gas is so choked down due to these proposals that it is no longer cost effective for utilities to provide them? Even if you propose to offer grants to help replacement of such equipment and installation of new infrastructure in order to support them, that money would have come from our own taxes anyway, so it is not free. In order to proceed with this process, a true analysis of the costs associated to the average New Yorker must be performed. While it is good to promote alternative energy sources, forcing it to be done like this is simply wrong. | ||
| Michelle,McGovern | At a time where gasoline is $5 a gallon and climbing, inflation on the rise and supply chain/food shortage issues, the State of New York has decided it's in the State's best interest to take away farmland and put solar farms in its place. Residents of NYS, and this country, are far from ready to transition to electric everything. The cost alone to convert my electrical service to accommodate an electric car is outrageous! And how short sighted is to not look at the waste an electric car will produce and where will that go? As for the food shortage -- as predicted by Biden -- why are we giving up farmland to solar fields? Why can't some of the already contaminated land, like Love Canal or brown fields throughout NYS, be used for such projects? Instead, we contaminate fertile ground for 20 or more years. Again, the electric waste of solar panels when they out live their use go where?? Why don't the residents of rural areas have a say in what happens to our green spaces and farm land? Residents of the Town of Cambria, Niagara County Legislature and the Town of Cambria Board have all voiced their concerns over taking away farmland for solar fields. Does the government of NYS listen? No! They have ignored our concerns with red tape and ignored us! I realize alternative energy is the thought of the future, yet long term studies of the effects of solar fields has not been completely studied. At one time, the world thought nuclear energy was the way to go.......we see how well that went! Greenspace, farmland, are needed. Wildlife, the ecological system depend on it. What's next?? Limiting the amount of cattle that can be raised in an area because of the gasses cows produce? Somewhere in our government, someone has to have enough common sense to see this idiotic logic. LISTEN to the People who LIVE in rural counties and will be affected by the solar fields. | ||
| Ari ,Jancetic | This is a terrible idea, would really hurt working class families struggling already. | ||
| Jessica,Dye | As a younger mother in New York State, I am all for more sustainable energy solutions long term. However this is not the time to cut off natural gas and fossil fuels. It needs to be done gradually, not in as short of a period as the World Economic Forum would like. People are fleeing New York State already and if this passes, there will be no tax payers left to pay politicians salaries. I am all for a more sustainable and greener future however this plan is not the way forward and not in a logical time frame.. unless you want zero tax payers of course. | ||
| Mary,Domitrovic | As a New York resident, I have felt the impact of the increased pricing of ALL things necessary to life; gasoline, electricity, natural gas for heating as well as an inordinate increase in food prices. I can not and will not accept that everything I bought and used for the last 5 years have increased due to lack of supply. No, instead I see all of this picture as one scene which is due to terrible decisions by those in government making the decisions. How many more people do you want to see leave New York? You may be willing to house and feed illegal residents but they don't pay your salaries. They are in the "liability" category not the "asset" one. Stop listening to everyone who wants something for free and serve those who have worked to pay their fare share of the government's burden. Stop spending what you don't have or you will make decisions that will bankrupt our state. | ||
| Peter,Connery | |||
| James,Kowalski | Your plans are unrealistic. Who is going to pay for changeover of my home and autos from natural gas and gasoline? I am on a fixed income and can’t afford such huge expenses. How can you mandate such changes without first having viable and affordable alternatives in place? Your goals are admirable but your arbitrary timelines are ridiculous and will place an unreasonable and frankly, impossible burden on the citizens of New York. I don’t want to hear about loans being available to accomplish this. I would have no way to repay such loans since my entire FIXED INCOME is barely enough to pay for my medicines and current living expenses. Rethink your timelines and your financing before mandating such burdensome plans for the future of New York State. As usual, New York’s so-called leaders are choosing to do what is politically expedient without being in touch with the needs and capabilities of its citizens. | ||
| Susan,Bailey | Please do not eliminate gas for residential homes. We are retired and live on a fixed income. This would be devastating for so many in this state already faced with higher property taxes and the many things where the costs have gone up. A better solution would be to offer everyone in this state the help to go solar which has been unachievable because of the costs. Please reconsider | ||
| Susan,Bailey | Please do not eliminate gas for residential homes. We are retired and live on a fixed income. This would be devastating for so many in this state already faced with higher property taxes and the many things where the costs have gone up. A better solution would be to offer everyone in this state the help to go solar which has been unachievable because of the costs. Please reconsider | ||
| Jeffrey ,Peters | These plans are going to create a burden on the taxpayers that many will not be able bear. We depend on natural gas to enable us to survive. My current utility bill indicates that less than 3% of the energy provided comes from renewables. The output and storage of electrical energy is insufficient to provide 24/7 supply of renewables. The per capita carbon output of the US is declining as efficiency technology evolves. I strongly recommend that you reconsider the time line for this, or better yet allow the taxpayers vote on this. | ||
| Tim,Tierney | I fully agree with the draft scoping plan. I will continue to vote for candidates who are aware of climate change and it’s consequences. | ||
| Philip,Church | County of Oswego | ||
| Lisa,Becker | I am taking this opportunity to encourage you to please make reliable energy your first priority. IT IS CRITICAL that you put reliable energy security first. Events in Texas have clearly shown that too high of a reliance on renewable energy can have catastrophic consequences. We must have reserve and infrastructure capacity to compensate for the ebb and flow of renewable energy as well as the new demands this will place on out electric grid. Make no mistake, reliable energy and effective climate control has been a major factor in our improved quality of life and life expectancy during the past 125 years. We will not support any politician who endangers this essential quality of life issue for any reason, especially to virtue signal to the green fringe. The most basic form of "social justice" is to be able to feed our families, while protecting their health and happiness in comfortable, safe housing. | ||
| Eric,Rodriguez | To Whom it May Concern, I am writing to discuss the Draft Scoping Plan that was put together by the Climate Action Council. I am pro green energy. However, the plan worries because I can think of many issues with an all-electric infrastructure. As a home owner I made it a priority to purchase a home with natural gas. I grew up with oil and I remember how cold my family were when we ran out of oil on cold days and had to wait to have our oil delivered. And the crazy prices on oil affecting our food budget. Oil is very dirty type of energy and we should start off by trying to eliminate oil first. Natural gas on the other hand is always available. It is much cheaper and a lot cleaner than oil. To take the gas infrastructure away could be devastating. When superstorm sandy hit how long did it take to get Long Island power grid up ? Thankfully I had gas to heat my home and to cook. Many friends didn’t. Just a couple years ago Texas power grid went down during a winter storm. How many people died because they were freezing to death ? Are you prepared to be responsible for potential losing Long Islanders lives for a for an all Electric plan that we had no idea how it would effect everyone during a storm or a black out ? Now as a homeowner in Nassau county, I have many unanswered questions because NY already has one of the highest electricity costs in the nation. What is the cost to make the transition? What will the electric rate jump to? What will be the average increase on the ratepayer? Where is the money coming from to fund the building of the infrastructure? I think there are so many unanswered question and no data to support that a electrical grid will support all the people of Long Island and the NYC. Let’s take smart baby sets to go all green. Not only would this plan hurt lives it’ll also hurt many people bank accounts to transition to all electric. | ||
| Michael ,Morton | Asplundh Properties, LLC | Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I do so as a real estate developer and investor on Buffalo's West Side. TOD expansion - we strongly support the expansion of the TOD program as a means to boost density along key transportation routes. TOD loans and BBF grants are fundamental to closing funding gaps between market rate building costs and current rents in 14213. Together the removal of parking requirements from the Green Code, this proposal will encourage higher buildings near bus and train stops. EVs - we highly support the expansion of charger infrastructure and incentives to landlords to add this expensive infrastructure, which would not otherwise be possible at market rents. Heating - we are very concerned about the removal of gas heating so soon. Requiring heat pumps will increase repair and capital costs significantly compared to high efficiency gas steam boilers (currently many units share 1-2 small boilers, whereas under the rules we will have to supply heat pumps for every unit). This will raise rents and force the cost of heat onto tenants who currently have heat included in their rent. | |
| wayne ,lesinski | i am against any plan to get rid of natural gas as an energy source. | ||
| Conway,Lisk | Reading this flyer that was sent out by Jeff Gallahan about New York becoming zero emissions. I have to say I have a problem with it all. I have been a resident all my life in New York and got schooled in NY. I was taught you live on a living planet and just like us it will go through its cycle of life and nothing we do will change that. Who believes differently is either politically motivated or is lining their pockets. Think about it all. For one the electric grid will not support 100% electric for one, for two all vehicles electric, what are you going to do with some of the harsh winters we have. Stay home, cause your electric vehicle won’t start. All batteries have a freezing point. How will you keep them warm. The third I would really like to know cause we have a big farm industry in upstate NY, batteries are heavy and the amount of batteries you would need for a tractor to operate in a field especially if it has rained. I would love to se that one. You would have to wait til it stop raining and dried to try and pull it out. Cause it would get stuck. All vehicles electric is a means to and end to keep people in power powerful and to keep people that can not afford it under there thumbs. Same way with all buildings and anything else they think is better for the climate. Recycling is one thing cause your reusing waste for something else but zero emissions. Seriously, what about methane, you going plug ever bodies but and all the farm animals and wild animals. No state or country will ever be zero emissions free. It’s a pipe dream of someone that does not have any common since what so ever. Look it up if you do not understand what that means. Making thing more energy efficient is one thing, making everything zero emissions is another. Like I said in the beginning it is either political or someone is lining their pockets. Cause all that is going to do is drive up cost which it has already done. Case in point gas tax break starting June 1. Gas went up. | ||
| ERNEST,DANKERT | self | How do people who park on the street and apartment dwellers recharge EV? Why are all NYS rate payers subsidizing Quebec to NYC transmission line? How will winter photovoltaic offset be made up when Quebec shutsdown electricity exports. How will grid failures be handled in the winter? | |
| William,Del Fuoco | To whom it concerns, I have to voice my objections to your persistence in the use of electricity for future use in lessoning our carbon footprint. My objection lies in the fact that the cart is being put front of the horse. Our current power grid is on life support now, and yet all these plans are being proposed to put yet more strain on an antiquated ,outdated system that needs, and has been neglected for a major overhaul. And to add insult to injury, since our current political atmosphere with Russia, China and North Korea is in the toilet, all we need is to have our population all electric only to be put in the dark and held hostage by a cyber attack on our already vulnerable power grid. The power grid is old, broke, bleeding, neglected and ignored. Lets FIX , upgrade, improve and harden it like a nuclear bunker FIRST before all these grandiose ideas are entertained. Lastly, has anyone given thought on as to how the average homeowner is going to be able to afford the additional costs which are certainly going to be dumped into their laps? | ||
| David,Mellor | While I am in favor of combatting climate change, this plan is too aggressive. We should allow the free market to dictate when to phase out the internal combustion engine. We use natural gas to provide electricity, is it not more efficient to use that gas directly in homes? Gas has traditionally been less expensive than electricity, especially for home heating, and how do you accomplish A/C effectively. Please do not back us into a corner where electricity providers have a monopoly. | ||
| joan,spira | Get us more gas at a price that is fair keep fracking going | ||
| Henry,Fuksman | Your plan is unrealistic, unstainable and very costly! Our utility costs have increased over 40% in the last year and your proposal would increase again!! We can reduce our dependence on some fuels but trying to get rid of clean natural gas is not realistic! The average cost to New Yorkers would be $35,000. per household. We can't sustain that. Everything is up-food, gasoline, utilities and now another increase that is not needed! Don't do this. We will continue to lose population. | ||
| Keith,Truesdell | There is too much to write, but in general I reject much of this. Some of the intent is well intentioned, but I find much of this to not be well thought out and will cause more harm in the perspective that it is intending. The local government should be stay and possibly have more power than what it does in these matters while still just staying with the general guidelines. I do not see that in the local government, reporting and waste sections and it seems there is much overreaching to local governments. This also seems to be some undo stress on the local government without their consent, and the consent of the people that elected the local government and the people that want that local government. The economy-wide strategies also have been proven incorrect on many occasions and are not accurate to what will actually happen and I reject that with the rest of the plan as well. The section is mostly well-intention platitudes but put in the context of the plan. While I agree with reducing the waste and current emissions, the general plans and the scope of this plan don't tackle the problem and instead hurt locally owned businesses and industries, and for the rest it does not change what they are doing so it will not have an effect with waste, pollution, and emissions, and only hurt the local economies in the long run. If we want to make the transition to cleaner energy we need to put resources into making the cleaner energy more affordable, more lucrative, more enticing, more accessible for everyone else (possibly with tax breaks and tax incentives) instead of hurting and penalizing the current situation. Once it becomes more advantageous to do those things, then those older ways will diminish and become less cost effective as fewer people rely on them while more people rely on the newer cleaner ways, and during the transition there will not be huge swings in price or resources. | ||
| Marcia,Messina | I would like to go on record as opposing these plans. They go too fast and too far. They say Rome wasn't built in a day and it seems that is what these plans are trying to do. I do not like having things shoved down my throat. These plans are too fast and too expensive and as a voting citizen I would like you to reject these plans Marcia Messina | ||
| Brian,Fellows | I am a former agricultural worker serving as a Pastor in a rural community in the Finger Lakes region. I believe the plan lacks critical thinking, reality and depth for the whole state. We still depend on natural gas and coal to generate electricity for the majority of our state. Electric farm machinery is impractical given the seasons of planting and harvesting in which much work MUST be done in short periods of time. When we add these factors with the labor laws passed and the unpredictability of nature, you are placing our ability to produce food in danger and the ability for agriculture to provide the necessary produce for the people of the state in jeopardy. We need to look harder at what is right for the whole state, consider what might be good for regions of the state and better inclusion of renewable resources. Methane can be generated from animal and human waste; it can also be generated from our landfills. I urge you to dive into the complexity of the challenge before us and not embrace simple answers on the basis that they are simple. If you do, the situation will only become more complex. | ||
| William,Hance | I am a senior 79 years of age and on fixed income. Like most seniors I don't have the income to allow me to purchase an electric vehicle. I purchase used vehicles that I can afford, and it will be many years before there are enough electrical vehicles on the market, that I could afford. Like wise, changing from Oil Heat for my home, will require me to have my electric service up graded to 200 amps. That will be another cost of around $4000. Also my furnace and all heating will have to get upgraded to electric. Another cost of $10,000 to $20,000 that I cannot afford. It will take years for the electric grid to transfer to alternate sources of power. Wind doesn't work at night and solar doesn't either. At the present time there is no way to store enough electrical energy to maintain the grid at night. I don't know how you can expect the average person to come up with the money's needed to make this transition. It will take 30 to 50 years to do this in our country. You can't expect this to happen in 5 to 10 years. Also you have to come up with an reliable source of electricity other than wind and solar. Half the people in the country are on some type of government subsidy now and you are expecting them to come up with more money to make this change? I can guarantee one thing, I won't be voting for a Democrat this fall or in 2024. | ||
| Kasey,Scheid | IBEW 1049 | My name is Kasey Scheid and I am the Political Director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1049. The draft proposal to cut greenhouse emissions will cancel out thousands of jobs and place a large financial burden on New York residents and homeowners. It would be required for all New Yorkers to retrofit their homes for electricity, as well as replace their appliances with electric ones to replace gas service. This will easily cost each homeowner more than $20,000! I personally have a fair paying job and I would not be able to afford converting my house. I cannot imagine how anyone could afford it, especially after these thousands of jobs are wiped out. Some of these jobs include welders, mechanics, pipeline inspectors, meter installers and readers, plumbers, laborers, and call center representatives. These jobs are held by hardworking New Yorkers. Some of whom are single parents, who will now lose their income, health benefits and the pension they have worked their whole life towards. New York is already an expensive place to live, and if this passes, New Yorkers will be forced to spend a significant amount of money to convert their house and appliances to all electric. I truly believe that in doing this, New York will pave the way to push out business owners and home owners because they will no longer be able to afford to live, or do business, here. And the additional costs don’t end there. Electric heating will cost homeowners approximately 40% more to operate than gas. Is this plan trying to make New York even more unaffordable for its residents? Some members of the public are using language that implores an imminent and catastrophic situation that must be addressed immediately, decisively, and without regard to any other major problems that will be created by these ill-conceived solutions. There certainly are better ways to solve this problem. The people who are demanding immediate action are not experienced in our field. | |
| Tom,Haynes | It would seem that these proposals lack the foresight of considering average New Yorkers interests. Energy prices have reached crisis levels with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills. We are experiencing the highest gas prices on record and it is only getting worse. Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden everyday New Yorkers. The average family in New York has realized modest gains in income with average household expenses having increased over $300 per month. This trend in inflation has no end in sight, it continues to increase. While idealistic views of zero emissions sound wonderful, they should work hand in hand with private industry and natural movement towards these goals. Let the market dictate, do not be part of government overreach and fall inline with zealots that are beating their Green New Deal drums louder than anyone else. Ultimately, the primary goal in all issues of New York State government is to serve New Yorkers as they wish to be served... All New Yorkers, not just a segment of them. See you in November. | ||
| Elizabeth,Storch | I am a senior citizen on a fixed income. I CANNOT PAY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY REQUIRED TO INSTITUTE THIS "SCOPING PLAN". I cannot afford NEW appliances, new electric car, etc., etc. This PLAN was developed by WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO COMPREHENSION OF WHAT IT TAKES TO LIVE on a lower middle class income. I SUPPORT ROBERT ORTT TOTALLY IN HIS EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE AVERAGE INCOME PEOPLE IN HIS CONSTITUTENCY. | ||
| Daniel,Summers | Climate change has been around sense the beginning of time, if the madness of the costly energy policies don't change it will be cheaper to move out of New York than stay here. I'd say goodbye. | ||
| Lonnie,Daigler | Homeowner | Your plans to eliminate natural gas and gasoline vehicles is going to cost new yorkers alot of money. Trying to eliminate natural gas to homes at this time and future is to much for the electric grid to handle. You currently have rolling blackouts during the summer months to help the burden on the grid. I have already seen that nat grid is now increasing or bills to help pay for the upgrade to the infrastructure of the grid. This is causing us a great burden in cost. Then when all is done our electric bills will way higher than they are now. It will take many years and a lot of money to get the infrastructure up to par. So this I believe will cause households to spend more money and have solar panels installed on our houses or windmills in our back yards. Niagara county is already losing valuable farm land because New York Sate government is requiring solar farms to be installed under our vast power line grid in our county. This then causing the land to be declared brown fields and not farmed unless it is cleaned up. And the big question is, who will clean it up. And now with electric vehicles. This will also put a burden on the elect grid and take away from the family vacations. With peoples work schedules they cant afford to be taking extra days for a weeks vacation just to charge their vehicle and look for a charging station on their trips. A hybrid vehicle is such a better idea for the future vehicles than a fully electric vehicle. Our economy was so much better off when we were oil independent along with bringing in the tar sand oil. And our gasoline prices were great. Lonnie | |
| Mark,Petzold | Page 181 of the Scoping plan briefly mentions cryptocurrency and energy-intensive operations. The Scoping Plan should take a stronger stance against Proof of Work (PoW) cryptocurrency, and recommend a permanent ban on any PoW cryptocurrency. The growth in Bitcoin alone risks NYS meeting its CLCPA goals. In the last 3 years, the number of operations by Bitcoin computers has increased 5X. See https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate and select 3 years on the graph. This growth from 50 million Terahashes per second to 250 million reflects the thousands and thousands of computers that have been added to the Bitcoin network. It is unsustainable. That is 250,000,000,000,000,000,000 hashes per second. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. Greenidge Generation in Dresden alone has grown from 7,000 computers to a planned 32,000 by end of year 2022. Bitcoin mining is simply irresponsible. The electricity Bitcoin is consuming benefits an extremely small percentage of the NYS population. That electricity is needed for powering our electric vehicles and heat pumps. Plus Greenidge alone burned 4.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas releasing 552,275,780 lbs of CO2e in 2021. And it will get worse. The Bitcoin PoW algorithm is designed to make the “complex puzzles” harder as time goes on. Miners will need more computers to maintain their share of the new Bitcoin awarded every 10 minutes. More electricity. Ethereum is switching to Proof of Stake which is 99% more efficient than PoW. That’s responsible. Bitcoin could do the same. We just don’t need Bitcoin. It is a non-essential and irresponsible industry. The Scoping Plan needs to take a stand. And stand on the side of NYS residents. | ||
| David,Desmarais | We can all agree that there is an ongoing shift in our climate. As an avid outdoorsman I see it. While the intent and goals of this plan are noble, the implementation time table is too aggressive. This plan will put New Yorkers who live in rural areas at an economic disadvantage. In many areas or rural NY there still isn't the infrastructure to support internet access. Rural New Yorker's who are already struggling with costly commutes will be further be burdened with additional costly regulation that will limit their access to affordable and practical transportation and limit their freedom to choose. New York is already in significant, unsustainable debt. The proposed measures will only add to the burden of New York's citizens as a whole. My family and I cannot support this. Again, while the intent is good the timeline is too aggressive. Respectfully, David Desmarais | ||
| David,Hogrewe | This is not the time to be implementing this plan. Our government should be focusing on getting inflation under control. As a 67 year old senior, I had planned on retiring this year but, with the rising cost of EVERYTHING, retirement is no longer an option. I'm fortunate that I have a job and can continue to work. I feel bad for others who are on fixed incomes and have to deal with the current situation. Our state should be putting the full power of government into making things more affordable for the majority of people in New York State.. Not adding more restrictions to compound the mess we're already in. I'm all for GREEN but, there is a time and place for its implementation and that time is NOT NOW !! | ||
| Lorraine ,DAVIS | The bill to control gas in buildings, appliances cars and new structures is over the top stupid. This will drive even more new business away from new york | ||
| Daniel,Carey | As always nys government is over-reaching. These climate policies are unrealistic. our country has plenty of natural gas and petrloleum to be self sufficient. While these fuels MAY contribute to warming, they are currently the best we have. the imagined benefit of everything being electric is foolhardy. where is all the new power going to come from?? Technology will advance and i am an advocate of that. just dropping the best forms of energy we have will not speed that up. so, i feel that supporting r&d of new energies is a good position for nys to adhere to. try offering incentives to companies to do that in nys. remember, the stone age didn't pass because they ran out of stones !! | ||
| Leean,Koch | I do Not believe you can put all your eggs in one basket. To rely on total electric is a disaster waiting to happen. When we have a storm, how many outages for homes and business do we have and for how long? You will be leaving billions of people, old people who need their oxygen, people in hospitals on life saving machines, as two examples, without energy to sustain. I thought generators ran on gas, propane or diesel.... EMAGINE that! Does Puerto Rico have power yet? I believe it went out in 2017. Business can't be run. You can't even keep food without spoiling. How about the heat? You are not thinking the idea through! | ||
| Kristin,Ferguson | This is a terrible plan - It should be rejected at this time as premature and overreaching. I understand and agree with the desire to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, but this is too much, too soon. The current infrastructure can't support this legislation. I think you need to work on one aspect at a time, and move a little more slowly as successes build. You are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in terms of eliminating gas services before you have the ability to make enough clean electricity to replace them. This will create a HUGE burden on homeowners, contractors and builders, in a time when people are already struggling so much financially. Please reject this legislation at this time. Please also try again, but do it in a manner that can be successfully completed without killing our economy in the process. Thank you | ||
| Kathleen,Reid | The plan to change to all electric is just not sustainable at this time. It has been proven that wind mills and solar panels can not provide the power that is needed. We are already experiencing power outages in areas of Texas and California due to these new "Green" ideas! Something needs to be done about these Leftists that want all of these changes!!!! Thanks for listening..... | ||
| Edward,Pehta | Mr | too much,too soon | |
| Anthony,Dell’Isola | Taxpayer, citizen | I am vehemently AGAINST the plan to phase out access to natural gas service in existing or new buildings (residential, commercial, or industrial) by 2024. This plan is ill conceived and poorly thought out in the establishment of such an aggressive timeline in order to do this. Requiring this mandate without some type of well thought out future energy plan for the New York State is reckless and foolish. This is what Albany is trying to do: By 2024, they want no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings. Additionally, they want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035. By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany Bureaucrats are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. Put frankly: It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. We are experiencing an energy affordability crisis with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills, and the highest gas prices on record. Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden | |
| David,Chatt | I am against imposing the proposed elimination of natural gas usage and the elimination of sales of gasoline powered vehicles in NY. There is no one right energy solution, but rather a balanced use of ALL available energy sources. Revise the plan to include smart applications of each energy source, and DO NOT make sweeping regulations that will undoubtably create problems rather than offer solutions. | ||
| Maria,Bash | I understand the Global Warming concern but the way you politicians go at it is totally crazy!! Where is this money coming from?? To think on relying ONLY on electricity is telling us voters & people in New York that you are railroading us into a spot that you deem is only acceptable instead of giving us citizens the option to choose what best fits our life! Who is going to pay for these changes in our homes and if we don't have the money to buy an electric car, are you going to pay for one for us?? Basically, you are going to give us a choice! Either ride public transportation, but an electric car or walk & bike where every you need to go. Did you forget some of us live to far to walk somewhere and we have winters here?? What happens when the electricity goes out, like it has time and time again???? I think you politicians have an extreme agenda and will ram your ideas on all of us no matter what! Global warming is an issue but not what you all make it out to be. This world has existed billions of years before you and it is still here ever changing. Why do you not concentrate on correcting the horrible laws you have enacted instead: no parole, catch and release that are causing more havoc in our lives than this "Global Warming" issue? You are DEFINITELY not looking out for the best interests of the people of New York. | ||
| Mike,Mig | The cost to retrofit the homes of those on a fixed income would be too much to absorb. Not everybody classifies as low income but are moderate income people who can not afford the changing to electric heating and cooking without a substantial impact on them financially. A full benefit cost analysis must be done on all initiatives. There must be also proven technology in place before we abandon the traditional power generation we current have. This new technology must be reliable and provide enough power to handle the needs of the new electric power demands such as home heating and electric cars. Proceeding without such a safety net is dangerous and foolish. | ||
| Michael,Montfort | No, no, no! You can hide behind "climate change" all you want, but your true motives are clear. With energy options, the people of New York are strong and safe. What is the outcome of your electric only plan when the power goes out? How am I supposed to keep my family safe and warm? How am I to travel? Is this what you want? The ability to flip a switch and imprison the entire state? Make us dependent on you hall monitors? Your goal is to create an artificial monopoly on power to which YOU hold the key. Imagine what you power hungry bureaucrats could be capable of when you can swing that weight around... or have you already? | ||
| James,Hanel | Our energy source and conservation will evolve over time properly without legislation. Science and experience will determine the correct path, not laws. | ||
| Jeffrey,Davies | This is not the time to add another burden to our already stretched income! This is insane, we can barely afford the high inflation rates on everything we buy now, and you want to add taking away our home gas heating systems and FORCE us to use electricity which we ALREADY pay a ridiculous amount of money for!!! Come on, whose side is New York state on here??? Certainly not the little guy, you don't seem to realize that not all of us make over one hundred thousand dollars a year, I'm sure there will be all kinds of special grants and help for the poor, but being a retired person and sadly only a chump middle class husband and wife, how are we supposed to survive gasoline prices approaching five dollars a gallon and beyond, the price of food almost doubling and even going to a store to purchase a once reasonably priced medication now seeing it costing twice as much if not more. I am a registered voter, and if I am given the chance I will gladly do my best to see that all you millionaire politicians who are pushing for this will be voted out of office. No wonder so many people are leaving this state, and I can't say the federal government really cares about us either, what a joke, next thing you know we'll have to decide if we want to eat, or pay the utility bill, don't do this to us. | ||
| Joseph,Hedemann | I am taking this opportunity to encourage you to please make reliable energy your first priority. While the move to green energy is commendable and inevitable, IT IS CRITICAL that you put reliable energy security first. Events in Texas have clearly shown that too high of a reliance on renewable energy can have catastrophic consequences. We must have reserve and infrastructure capacity to compensate for the ebb and flow of renewable energy as well as the new demands this will place on out electric grid. Make no mistake, reliable energy and effective climate control has been a major factor in our improved quality of life and life expectancy during the past 125 years. We will not support any politician who endangers this essential quality of life issue for any reason, especially to virtue signal to the green fringe. The most basic form of "social justice" is to be able to feed our families, while protecting their health and happiness in comfortable, safe housing. | ||
| Paul,Jasulevich | This is not the way to go natural gas is the vital resource if we go all electric what happens when the power grid can I take it we have enough issues with the power grid now the leader ship in the state has to wake up | ||
| Amy,Vance | All electric for NY is not practical. When the power goes out in winter I'm not going to freeze to death. A well rounded approach to energy,offering choices is the best and most effective way to address large energy consumption. | ||
| Melinda,Smith | To whom it may concern, As a young mom and small business owner, I truly feel as though incorporating these changes and taking away our right to choose is a landslide into disaster. I understand the need to do something about climate control, but as a registered Democrat, I have never been more disgusted and disappointed in my state government. The over-reaching that is going on here is appalling. To take the choice out of citizens' hands on how they are to acquire their energy is a violation of rights. Absolutely NO QUESTION about that. Perhaps offering a huge tax break or some other monetary incentive to "go green" is a better avenue to take? This change hits the consumer directly in the pocketbook, and is something that most of "upstate" New Yorker's no longer have the patience for. Rising prices of everything from fruit to nuts has made our lives incredibly difficult, and adding this level of control can only lead to the Democrat's downfall. Continue down this path, and Dems in office WILL lose the primaries this fall. Which, let's be real, is the short-term goal here, correct? Albany needs to wake up and remember that you serve the people, not the other way around. This is NOT in the citizens' of this state best interest and, if continued, will see even more of a mass exodus from this state. Knowing this email will likely not make a lick of difference, Melinda Smith | ||
| rich,dambra | Rich Dambra | stop this insanity...now! if these changes are implemented, ny will see an exponential increase in energy costs - its simple economics - restrict supply, demand rises, causing higher prices. the country is experiencing this now with bidenomics (and no, its Putin's war...) there is ample supply of clean fuels as such why force all new yorkers to using less effective sources - especially when there are not enough electricity generation plants available? It would not be unreasonable to expect ny will experience demand related brown/blackouts as a result of imposing these changes so hastily. there are many things I love about ny, its gov't is certainly not on that list. As these ideas continue to fester and get implemented, the greater the likeliness that I will move to a much more centrist state. The biggest reason folks move out after 'the weather, is taxes - these suggested changes and the effects that follow, will be worse than taxes, as costs to leave here will grow and the folks that can move, will. stop this insanity ps - are changes needed, yes; imposing these changes well before effective, tested solutions are available is what makes this an insane proposition.... | |
| Robert,Betsch | Retired | My wife and I bought this home in the early seventies. The house was completely electric. We were offered a chance to convert to natural gas approximately ten years later. In the interest of saving energy costs, we converted. Currently, our furnace and hot water tank, and clothes dryer are natural gas. I believe we are better off having a mix of resources to choose from. Our country is rich in natural resources. We don't need to be beheld hostage by foreign countries to obtain energy resources. As I understand it and with the current movement to have everyone driving electronic vehicles, we may have trouble getting lithium, which China may have control of. There also seem to be many unsolved problems when it comes to mining the resources, as well as disposal. In light of the above comments above please count me as opposed to NYSERDA Scoping plan. | |
| Dan,Schulz | Do not restrict the use of natural gas and gasoline. NY is already one of the most expensive states to live in. Encourage renewable energy but leave traditional economical readily available sources in place. | ||
| David,Pulhamus | Attached are my comments. I against the proposals to mandate use of electricity to power all aspects of New Yorker's lives. The s cience and engineering does not support the total elimination of fossil fuels. It is interesting that during the COVID-19 pandemic politicians touted science as proof, but with this issue anecdotal evidence is used. Why can't this be put up for a vote? Different areas of the State require different solutions. One plan will not work for all. This is another instance of overreach that will make companies and people question whether they want to move to or remain in New York. Please read my attachment. Thank you. David Pulhamus | has attachment | |
| guy,m fortunate | I don't know which chapter but eliminating the best utility any homeowner could use is crazy. Gas is and has been the way to go. And for everyone to swap out their inexpensive gas appliances for electric is down right wrong. Who the hell comes up w/these ideas.... Also, I live on the edge of Lake Ontario, when the hell is the water going to be lowered again. It has to be 2ft higher than last year. My rocks will not support high water and damaging waves. Thanks Guy "un" Fortunate | ||
| Steven,Rankin | NY is not ready to implement this plan, and won't be for a long time. The push to move onto the electric grid as a source of heating and vehicle charging will overload the current grid. Until the electrical grid in this state is as reliable as the gas heating grid, I will oppose any attempt to force me to change to electric heating. Until electric vehicles become as easy to recharge as refueling, I will oppose the change to ban gasoline or liquid fueled vehicles. I am really upset about the push to covert to only electric heat, The debacle in Texas during one winter where the electric grid failed and left thousands without heat proves electric heat cannot be counted on to reliably heat my home. Massive changes to the electrical energy grid are needed and I DO NOT see the government making any effort to pay to have this done. The cost is falling directly on me the consumer while NY government WASTES millions of dollars on NONSENSE causes and programs. Let me see some effort by those of you in the government offices to build a reliable energy grid and I will perhaps start to support this stupid plan. I sure as hell can't expect the private companies to do the upgrades because if they do. they will pass the enormous cost on to me and I am sorry I pay enough now as it is for energy. Stop spending my money on nonsense and spend it on something useful. | ||
| Peggy,Hilliker | I support efforts to fight climate change, but fear that NY is on a path which would create huge financial hardship for my family, and serious problems for the state. If the Climate Action Council’s scoping plans are not changed, homeowners would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert their home to electric heat pumps, stoves, and water heaters. We would be penalized with carbon taxes or surcharges on other fuels. NY’s electric rates are already among the highest in the country, and we report the most outages of any state in the mid-Atlantic. The rapid, untested changes to the electric grid are likely to send electric rates even higher and compromise the resilience of the electric grid. I don’t believe we have a good enough understanding of the real costs and risks of these plans, and there will be a backlash when their impact is felt. Our path forward should not ban fuels like natural gas, propane gas and biofuel heating oil which can get increasingly renewable. We can reduce carbon output significantly without putting all our eggs in one fragile, expensive electric basket. We are moving too far, too fast, with too much risk and cost. I urge you to support a broader path to a cleaner energy future. Plus the reasons for climate change is do to the hole in the ozone has gotten smaller so the atmosphere is now holding in more heat causing these catastrophes that are pointed out in chapter 2. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. | ||
| lawrence,richards | ALLIED MECHANICAL | I AM 72 YEARS OLD AND NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE OUR GREAT AMERICA DESTROYED BY THE POLITICIANS THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO OFFICE. GREEN WITH NO REAL PLAN IN PLACE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. OUR ELECTRICAL GRIDS NEED REPLACING, THE ELECTRIC VEHICLES CAN NOT BE AFFORDED BY THE AVERAGE PERSON, AND THERE ARE VERY FEW CHARGING STATIONS. HOMES BUILT WITH TOTAL ELECTRICITY!!! THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING PAID BY US THE TAXPAYER HAVE NO IDEA HOW ANYTHING OPERATES. WELL WE WILL WAIT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ONLY TAKE SO MUCH SO CONTINUE YOUR HIGHER PRICES AND YOUR POLICIES THERE IS ALWAYS THE VOTE AND WE WILL VOTE. KEEP IN CONTACT WHEN YOU LOOSE YOUR JOBS SEE HOW THE AVERAGE AMERICAN LIVES. WE KNOW HIGHER GAS PRICES AND INFLATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THIS GREEN AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS WELL GOOD LUCK. THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR ORT | |
| Gary,Hunt | The cost of living is killing the middle class, we can't afford to put gas in our vehicles, the price of fuel is hurting our way of life. The cost of energy effects our cost of going to a job, (part time of full time), cost of food, cost of heating, electric bills, cost of purchase of clothing, equipment, the programs out there are to aggressive for this time. Thing need to change at a slower pace. I can't even afford to put a new roof on my garage or to purchase lumber for projects around our homes. | ||
| Patricia,Metzger | I reject New York's proposal regarding a major change in energy use from fossil fuels to electricity. New York is not ready for such a drastic change in energy supply and use as planned. - Cost is prohibitive for most residents- converting gas heating to electric for homes and businesses would stretch budgets beyond what citizens can handle. - The current technology is not up to the task of millions of additional users. - Upstate counties cannot depend on electric being available now during certain times of the year. We need back up energy resources which would be prohibited in this plan. - Solar seems great on the outside but the technology to produce the panels and batteries is polluting and reduces natural resources. Panels are not recyclable. Batteries are extremely toxic opening another can of worms. Solar costs are prohibitive and the climate in New York is not always appropriate to solar energy production. - Much of the equipment for use in alternative energy would be produced outside of the US (ie China). - Wind is not appropriate for areas with average wind speeds under certain values. Safety can also be an issue with wind use. - Electricity currently produced in New York originates with burning fossil fuels. How does this solve the problem? I believe you folks are unrealistic and need to step back and rethink. | ||
| Scott,Hilliker | I support efforts to fight climate change, but fear that NY is on a path which would create huge financial hardship for my family, and serious problems for the state. If the Climate Action Council’s scoping plans are not changed, homeowners would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert their home to electric heat pumps, stoves, and water heaters. We would be penalized with carbon taxes or surcharges on other fuels. NY’s electric rates are already among the highest in the country, and we report the most outages of any state in the mid-Atlantic. The rapid, untested changes to the electric grid are likely to send electric rates even higher and compromise the resilience of the electric grid. I don’t believe we have a good enough understanding of the real costs and risks of these plans, and there will be a backlash when their impact is felt. Our path forward should not ban fuels like natural gas, propane gas and biofuel heating oil which can get increasingly renewable. We can reduce carbon output significantly without putting all our eggs in one fragile, expensive electric basket. We are moving too far, too fast, with too much risk and cost. I urge you to support a broader path to a cleaner energy future. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. | ||
| Harold,Suhr | We need to stop this foolishness by our elected officials to destroy our state economy by using ridiculous restrictions on proven fossil fuel technologies . By chasing windmills,solar panels and ethanol plants with huge subsidies we are selling our future to other countries like China,Russia and other fossil fuel using countries.All of this is based on politically driven and deceitful scientific hogwash which has no proven hard factual basis. I’m tired of this money grab by crooked politicians and their evil and corrupt financiers.I will forever vote to remove any and all government officials pushing these deceitful and unproven agenda’s that destroy our great American way of life. I am a local politician and will push common sense and scientifically proven agendas on energy use. | ||
| Erik,Michaelsen | This plan is both premature and too restrictive. This plan should be rejected across the board simply because of authoritarian edicts such as no gas using appliances to be allowed in new builds. Ironically, the work of this committee has alienated me, a person who is committed to the environment, opposes fracking, and loves nature ! | ||
| Jon,Davis | One more attack on the retiree class! Yes, that's you, New York State and Governor Hockel. Raise the costs of all our energy (and of course all items we purchase and taxes that will go to support higher heating bills for those who can't afford). New York State Electric & Gas has already warned us they are looking at an increase of 20% (I'm sure it's because of our governor's forthcoming crippling energy mandates. Anything this state or country does will do only a tiny bit to ease global warming because India and China are by far the largest world polluters. China is building more coal fired power plants than the rest of the world combined. Meanwhile, our governor will send all lower income families into a financial tailspin. The answer to global warming is reliable nuclear generation, not low efficiency, unreliable wind and solar. But wait! The governor is doing just the opposite. The government officials who push these green initiatives will see the voter's wrath in a few years when the energy system in our state crashes and burns, and energy bills rape our Social Security checks. | ||
| Louus,Rizzo | Strongly oppose your climate position of banning natural gas appliance and home heating with gas. Banning gas power cars this is not the time as New Yorkers are suffering to put food on the table these policies will destroy the middle class. The voting public is watching we can’t take any more. | ||
| mike,calabrese | I think your new plan is to radical and that natural gas is way to go,if people want to use electric energy fine and if the gov want,s to encourage people by offering a incentive fine.But imposing a fee for mileage driven is ridiculous,are we suppose to go back to horse and buggy if we want to take a sunday drive?. | ||
| John,Brown | Reject. This is the completely wrong approach. | ||
| TERRY,PENROD | stop all this foolishness with omiting natural gas and petroleum from our future. yes, maybe somewhere in the future we can gradually change to alternate fuels but right now we need common sense to get this entire country back on it's feet from the damage done by the current administration. | ||
| Donald,Mosher | We in New York have witnessed the destruction of our once great state. The cost of electricity is ever increasing and getting to a point of not being feasible to afford. The cost of new vehicles are out of reach for most New Yorkers. The environment will not be helped by going to electric vehicles since the production of batteries will require the same amount of fossil fuels to create as it takes to run a gasoline vehicle for 8 years. These batteries must be replaced every 7 to 9 years so there is no gain in pollutants. Also, hybrids use fossil fuel backup that will cause the electric hybrid vehicles to have a worse impact than the existing gasoline vehicles. All batteries will crack their containment vessel. All dead batteries have residual voltage that will cause corrosion and eventual breakdown of their containment such as we see in flash lights that have corroded and leak when the batteries have not been removed. These batteries for electric cars today cannot be recycled. The breaking down of these batteries will cause an environmental catastrophe with the ground pollution getting into our water. The cost of infrastructure to supply power for most neighborhoods will make the cost of electricity to charge an electric vehicle impossible to afford. The infrastructure cannot support the additional power need so the cost to upgrade electric generation facilities will even further make it impossible to afford a vehicle. We people that live in the suburbs and country areas must have vehicles to go to work and get to stores to purchase supplies. The economy will take another hit if people that do not have access to public transit and cannot get to work or get to purchase supplies. Not only will there be a major reduction to New York’s economy but people will continue to move out of New York and go to states that use common sense to help their people. This is the highest taxed state and still cannot live within its budget without going further in debt. | ||
| Keith,Newton | Please don't enact any of this s--- till after I die. Thank you. | ||
| Brenda ,Kania | Do not approve bit coin mining in North Tonawanda. Shut that plant down. | ||
| Sara,Pelikan-Cato | I respectfully ask for this commission to look at supporting and writing better laws to ensure solar power in NY state is beneficial and sustainable in addition to producing more equitable research about solar power installations and its impact on communities. Once these solar panels are installed they will have forever changed the landscape; taking away much needed farmland and an reversible ecological impact. It seems grossly unfair to impact rural areas in such a profound and irreversible way in order to help offset all of the energy consumption and pollution of larger cities with more people. Installing enough solar farms to generate 6,000 MW of solar energy will devastate NY's beautiful rural spaces, negatively impacting its tourist and agricultural revenues. What happens once this technology no longer works or is replaced with something new in the future? Are there not enough rooftops, abandoned parking lots etc and highway medians to provide the clean energy needed and save what makes New York so special? Please make these plans public and transparent to the people of the communities so they can truly understand what is at stake and is being proposed. This plan seems to have a short term gain for few that will be detrimental to majority of NY residents. In essence this is an issue of environmental injustice. | ||
| Anne,Miller | No to all of this waste of my hard earned tax paying money. No especially to no new gas lines in new construction, no to no new gas appliances and most definitely NO to no new gas fueled automobiles. | ||
| Reginald,Buri | Dear NYS Representatives, I have reviewed the future plans for Climate initiatives and find them totally ridiculous. Natural gas is the best energy option and should not be phased out. Rural NY in particular relies on NG both for domestic home heating and cooking, not to mention power backup to the fragile electrical supply. It seems that NY is using the same playbook from California, written by ideologues who are obsessed with Green liberal dreamers. As one who has both an Engineering and Masters Degree in Business, I submit the pursuit of the Climate agenda proposed is disastrous. If you'd prefer California and it's Green agenda, I would be willing to contribute to your one-way plane ticket. Leave NY as it is! Sincerely yours, Reginald Buri, Gasport, NY | ||
| Diane,DeJohn | There needs to be a cost benefit analysis before you go way to far on thinking that ALL ELECTRIC is the way to go. Too much too fast could have catastrophic results. More studies need to be done. | ||
| Linda,Schirching | I am very much against the plan to stop letting people build homes with gas heat and appliances. And am very much against stopping people from using and buying gas stoves, gas hot water tanks and gas furnaces in the future. My husband and I had a new all electric house back in the 70’s because of a moratorium on gas and we suffered financially. My husband was making $300 a week and our electric bills were $400 a month starting in the fall all through the winter. And to make matters worse our power went out quite often. We suffered financially and our house was always cold because we couldn’t afford the comfort. I never want an electric house again and I don’t feel you can force me. I don’t feel a handful of politicians should destroy peoples lives and how we live. No one has the right to tell someone how they have to live. Forcing people to go all electric is a very bad idea for our electric grid and will be a disaster if we have a major power outage. I have lived through power outages of 8 days numerous times and 4-5 days several times. I can thank God when I had a house with gas as at least I could cook and take a warm bath. I have full intentions of fighting this awful climate idea and will definitely sign on to any class action law suit. | ||
| Shannon,Kasperek | Eliminating gas powered appliances and going 100% electric is not the answer. This is not sustainable for the long run and for our future. Natural gas is sustainable and should remain an option for appliances. It is not NYS job to dictate what type of power the people use in their every day lives. I strongly oppose this potential ban on natural gas and going to full electric power. | ||
| Bob,Pedrick | I have lived in New York almost all of my life-I love it here,but these policies are RIDICULOUS! I mean if you do the research like I have, you would see that first of all the Electric Grid would not be able to handle all of this Electric usage-also technically Electric gives off more Carbon emissions than Natural gas!I'm winter-which are very harsh for our state-windmills freeze-what do you need to unfreeze-gasoline!I don't think it is fair for you to implement COSTLY POLICIES-without a vote from the taxpayers that fund these projects! None of these policies make SENSE!! If they are implemented,I am afraid my family and I will have to leave NYS and relocate to another state!! The real problem is politicians that do not properly research such RIDICULOUS COSTLY POLICIES-and then implement them on good tax paying citizens!!!! | ||
| Jeff,Pfeifer | New York's climate leadership knows this is a HUGE CATASTROPHIC FAILURE, of EPIC proportion. It's an attempt to control the people of New York State, with it's model of being the Highest Taxed state in the Nation. With the current condition of the Power Grid in NYS it won't be enough to maintain the Power Needs of the public. This is a Huge over reach of the leftist agenda to destroy the MIDDLE CLASS. Abandoning and banning the drilling of natural resources, is only going to raise the cost of living. The usage of Farmland for Wind and Solar energy also destroys valuable growing acreage for producing food. New York Government only seems to spend hard working taxpayer dollars on FAILURES (WASTING MONEY). The upgrades to the power grid is being done so huge government can turn off power at will. There are a minority of government people intentionally NOT following the majority of the tax payers needs. | ||
| Michael,Potter | This is an unworkable plan New York does NOT have the infrastructure or enough electric power generation to handle this plan. Citizens will die when the rolling blackouts happen during the harshest weather conditions. If everyone switches to electric power then NYSEG will have a monopoly on ALL of the energy supply and there will be no competition for energy sources. Prices that we pay will rapidly rise without competition. | ||
| Traci,Potter | It is unfair to eliminate gas as a fuel source to heat our homes and run our vehicles. You are setting up New Yorkers to pay more in energy costs than we can afford. As a NY tax payer, I am appalled at the drastic proposals in this plan. I plead to you to not pass these proposals. It will lead to more people moving out of New York. | ||
| James,Rathbun | How do you think that converting to all electric is going to be beneficial to all of the residents of New York State? This state does not have the electrical infrastructure to even come close to what you are proposing. You are adding significant costs for every resident to convert to electrical appliances, such as furnaces, hot water tanks, gas stoves, etc. New York State has had severe storms which has taken out the electrical grid for weeks and sometimes months. The conversion to electric vehicles is frankly stupid. The grid goes down and no one will be able to drive anywhere let alone stay warm and be able to cook meals. Your team needs to return to the table and figure out a better solution. You wonder why residents of this state leave. | ||
| Roger,Giuseo | Climate change has been proven to be a hoax. My 79 years on this planet has shown NO appreciable change in temperature. It has proven to be a “money grab”. Wind and solar are not dependable Brown outs in California have shown disastrous results. The freeze in Texas is another example of “green energy “ doing damage. Citizens do not deserve to throw money away on assume projects. You want renewable energy? Nuclear is the only answering | ||
| Michael,Miano | I fully support the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). | ||
| RAYMOND,HOWARD | Just do it! There is no planet B! | ||
| Loni,Nagle | I believe your plan to electrify everything is bad for New York. We need a mixed approach including natural gas which is far more reliable and affordable. We need to combing renewables with efficient use of renewables like natural gas and green hydrogen. The financial burden of all electric is staggering. I think this is totally the wrong plan. | ||
| Ronald,Danielewicz | I am absolutely against the ridiculous energy plans for NYS. | ||
| Richard,Forsey | |||
| Karen,Casselbuey | This climate plan is way off target. The issue with global warming is the additional 5 billion human on the earth in the last 100 years. The infrastructure for energy in NY is subpar, my generator frequently runs due to loss of power. Electric cars use metals that have to come from mining and those batteries have a limited life span. Wind turbine blades NEVER decompose. New York has become a state run by a limited few, a state with so many restrictions and laws it has become akin to a dictatorship. As an American it is my right to utilize the energy source that is affordable, reliable and accessible. I pay one of the highest state taxes in this country and yet have increasingly limited rights and results from a state government that has lost focus. May God help those that have common sense regarding this energy bill realize that this is not reasonable nor is it good for the environment. It is simply padding the pockets of those vested in electricity and electric cars. It simply does not make any logical sense whatsoever. | ||
| Lorne,Thatcher | If this plan is implemented I will finally get out of New York State and relocate to a state where I will be able affordably retire, live with more freedom and avoid the excessive taxation. It also seems both my adult children will consider relocating. In recent years half of my friends have made the move to avoid NYS regulation and taxes. It will be interesting to see who will be left to tax and regulate, surely not the successful hard working law abiding proud Americans I know. Sincerely, Lorne Thatcher | ||
| Patrick,Hennegan | You people are absolutely insane with this green new B.S . Here are some questions for you , to replace a battery system in an electric vehicle that is out of warranty is over $15,000 , that’s pretty much half the cost of a vehicle today in 2021 , that will probably double by 2035 , I can’t afford that and I don’t think most middle class New Yorkers can either especially since you people in charge have completely handcuffed the working class in getting ahead because we are to busy paying for the freeloaders that you cater too. I have fire fighters in my family that have first hand experience of not being able to extinguish electric vehicles when they are on fire , dangerous cancer causing chemicals are needed to put the fire out ( I’m sure that’s good for the environment) . Battery disposal and solar panel disposal, can’t put that stuff in landfills , what’s your plan for that ? Haven’t heard any news on that front . What gives you the right to tell me what kind of heating system I can use in my house or what kind of appliances I can have . Didn’t you idiots learn anything when Texas windmills went down and left people freezing to death and without power for an extended period of time ? Have you ever thought about terrorist attacks ? Any simpleton can figure out if you do away with fossil fuels they only need to cripple the power grid and everything shuts down . This is a serious safety concern . You wonder why people are fleeing NY state at an alarming rate , if things continue on this outrageous path of stupidity I will be leaving along with the rest of my family . Leadership in this state is pathetic and I pray to GOD the people in power are voted out and some people with common sense can get New York back to being a place I want to live . | ||
| jerry,velesko | I reject these plans to hike energy costs where I cant even hook up to gas that goes by my house and force me to one energy sorce electric we need choices to heat our homes do not let these plans go thru | ||
| Daniel,Tiebor | Natural gas has always been a clean energy source. Why all of a sudden is bad? Furthermore, our electricity rates in Western New York are extremely high and we cannot afford to run everything on electric. My electric bill is more than DOUBLE my gas bill on any given month, and I use my energy conservatively. Who will pay for the extensive home infrastructure upgrades to support 100% electrical appliances and heating? This is an unfair proposal and puts a financial hardship and burden on the already struggling Western New Yorkers. In a time of economic uncertainty, record inflation and an inevitable recession, this is the worst possible time to consider such a ludicrous proposal. As for electric vehicles – this puts an unfair burden on New York's lower class and middle class citizens. Many of us can barely afford a $3,000 used car, let alone a $60,000 electric vehicle. While we are all striving to reduce our carbon footprint and live green in our daily lives, these radical proposals are absurd and put many of us below the poverty line with having to take out thousands of dollars in loans to comply. I urge you to please reconsider. Sincerely, Daniel L Tiebor | ||
| Linda,Dye | As a tax payer and citizen we cannot afford this plan at this time. Reject this plan to hike energy and make our natural gas inaccessible. This is not the time to burden the people of this state any further. At this point the people of this state are already struggling with record high fuel cost and record high crime. This plan would further break the back of the people in this state. You are our elected officials meaning that you answer to the citizens of this state. As a citizen I believe in conservation and alternative energy but it has to be done reasonably so the hard working people of this state can afford the right changes. I have been a registered democrat for many years, but within the last 2 years I am questioning all the policies that are being thrashed upon us, many of them in the midst of the covid crisis. Please REJECT this plan. Sincerely Linda Dye | ||
| Rick,G | This is not how you address an issue. This is how you completely destroy a state in 3 easy steps... And you wonder why NYers are leaving in droves... | ||
| Phillip,Thompson | Our state is not ready to make these changes with the elimination of fossil fuels. Our infrastructure is not adequate to handle the expected increase of electricity use needed. Inflation and high gas prices are ridiculous, | ||
| Dawn,Finewood | I have spent my entire 55 years of life in the state of New York. I have often bragged about what New York has to offer, but unfortunately I have difficulty defending the state that I have supported for years. I also am seriously thinking that the state my entire family has lived in since our family has come to this country, I will no longer be able to afford to live within. I am sure I am not the only person who has this feeling. I started working when I was 17 and have continued to work since then. I have been a full time NYS public school teacher for more than 30 years and counting. I am concerned with my ability to spend my retirement years in New York. I am horrified with what the state government is trying to do by 2024- wanting no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings.I have also learned that it is NYS’s objective to want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, generators, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030. Do you realize the costs that will be incurred by the residents of the state of New York? A state that already is one of the most costly states to live within? Is the state of New York following its state motto of Excelsior? I guess I wasn’t aware that this meant- ever upward with the cost to live in this state. This is truly a disappointment. So, to top it off N.Y. & part of our current nation administration feel it is a great idea to have no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035.We do not & at the rate we are going have the means or infrastructure to make this a reality.I am noticing that New York has these pie in the sky ideas, but often puts the cart before the horse & makes absolutely ridiculous decisions.Not fully thinking about the weather climate of the state and challenges that that brings.I am in support of thinking about our planet and preserving the world for the future, but also we need to have a diverse plan for energy- not this | ||
| stan,goers | please get your heads screwed on properly. rushing blindly into a "climate plan" that we are not prepared for and do not have the infrastructure to support is just plain stupid. -but that's the democrat way isn't it? force the people to comply instead of creating a system that works and sensibly transitioning into it. it's pretty ironic that "transitioning" into electrically heated buildings will actually create MORE carbon emissions to produce said electricity than heating with clean efficient natural gas. on top of the fact that the so-called "crisis" is mostly fabricated to create a problem to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at with no way to measure results, in the process, millions will be siphoned off to "special interests" and upcoming democrat campaigns. Business as usual in NY the only good news is at the rate people are fleeing this, and several other liberal cesspool states, there should be plenty of land to put up your chinese solar panel farms. New York not only needs to abandon this horrible plan, but we need to flush our corrupt self-serving leadership and return to American values. thank you very much Rob Ortt sent me here. Astorino for governor 2022! | ||
| Mary,Drzyzga | As a citizen of Niagara County of New York State I'm asking that this bill be scraped. This is not the time for this bill with the inflation. As some politicians are so into this Green New Deal I have some questions for them, if you want to get rid of Gas & go All Electric answer this, why do you get in your private planes & as far as solar power have you ever thought about how often New York have an Overcast Sky & in order to power Solar Panels the use of Electricity is needed. Just some questions that should be answered be for you go into your New Green Deal | ||
| Kevin,Pera | There is no way, I would ever run an electric heater, or an electric car, or an electric stove, or an electric dryer. Natural gas is far more efficient at all these things. Figure out another way. Putting up windmill Farms, when we have the East Coast largest power project, wasting more of our tax dollars is exactly why one day I hope all of you corrupt b------- get voted out | ||
| Terry ,Hoffman | Please reject all of these! | ||
| Jennifer,Baker | REJECT the proposed plans to eliminate gas hookups to new buildings, REJECT the proposed plans to eliminate gas appliances. This will only lead to unnecessary increases in costs for residents of New York State. | ||
| Lisa,Wagner | Forcing me to buy an electric vehicle and modify my home is ridiculous. Not only can I barely afford to put gas in my car now, imagine the cost of my electric bill when I have to charge my car. The government locally and federally are making it very difficult for a single income household to survive. It's time for the people to take back our lives. | ||
| Barbara,Andersen | I have just finished reviewing the scoping plan overview, and am concerned about the benefit-cost analysis. Although I agree that health and environmental benefits, to some of which it is difficult to assign a dollar value, would be seen over time, the costs to initiate new systems would likely need to be put forth long prior to the benefits, likely from the source of significant taxation on New Yorkers to "make it happen". The cost of living in New York, as we all well know, is often barely sustainable at present, and costs of keeping our homes heated without additional taxation was quite challenging even this past year. Many NY homes are historic and not easily amenable to proposed systems. Additionally, we as a state have been driving residents and businesses out of state with currently high levels of taxation. We need to make sure that our goals to improve energy sourcing and use are balanced with these other issues of cost outlay and taxation. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. | ||
| David,Dimbleby | I support shifts in energy uses that address emissions and climate issues. However, I am concerned with legislation restricting the use of natural gas and other energy sources in a randomly chosen timeframe. I prefer market forces impacting these changes rather than legislative action. Change is taking place currently and will continue without the short timeline you propose. Your plan could result in serious consequences that results in a public backlash that derails the outcomes you hope to achieve. | ||
| Michael,Mulholland | New York State continues to try to take the lead in everything restrictive, ridiculous and unrealistic. Stop the movement on natural gas and gasoline/diesel phase outs. Electricity in not the answer for most of us. | ||
| Tracey,Kujawa | I reject the propositions in this plan. It is more costly with underlying agendas that is only going to cost taxpayers more money! | ||
| michael,rizzone | i am all for reducing carbon emissions and going all electric. but now is not the time. the chicken did not come before the egg and we are not there yet, not even close. many friends i know are for all electric but they are the ones with signs on thier front lawns saying no to solar parks and wind mills. keep ny and the usa able to produce our own oil and gas until we and the world are ready to become all electric without making our climate worse by getting the chicken before the egg. | ||
| Mark,Scarpena | This has to be the worst and least thought out plan I have ever seen. I know you think you’re doing something good, but many jobs and companies will be lost. This will drive out our citizens and place a higher tax burden on the remaining citizens of NYS. This will not work anyway and will result in a loss of revenue for NYS because people will buy these goods in other states. I will drive to PA to buy my appliances. | ||
| Barbara,Pfeifer | concerned NYS resident | To ban gasoline engines, vehicles, natural gas appliances, & petroleum based products is utterly absurd! New York continues to fail its residents with a top heavy overreaching leftist agenda. Its unacceptable! As a life long resident of NYS I I love my home state and enjoy its natural beauty, however if my family and property was not here we would leave this state FAST. NY is not innovative in finding better solutions to concerns, they are about control, bans, high taxes and mandates and its time to put a stop to it all. The majority are not onboard with this ridiculous idea. This is already projected to fail, why would you think a ban on all gas engines and appliances would work? If NY is trying to cripple small towns and individuals, then they are right on track. As a child I grew up conserving electricity, shutting off the lights when I left the room. Do we teach that? Nope. The cold temperatures and harsh winters in NY are infamous. Can you imaging heating an entire home with all electric? Its not a good idea or a viable solution, head back to drawing board a ban is ridiculous. No ban on a renewable natural resource. There has to be a better solution, oh yes! Keep the option of gas and electric! Solved. | |
| Charles ,Plato | We live over the Marcellus Shale the largest deposit of natural gas in the world. Why would we not benefit from this and achieve energy independence. Natural gas is a clean and affordable option. The hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls does not stay here, we get our electric power from a coal burning plant in Canada. Same pollution comes to Buffalo and no US Jobs! | ||
| Elizabeth,Eaton | Our officials seem intent on killing NYS through extreme proposals like this. It makes no sense to implement your plans, for the most part. This plan needs to be scuttled, as it will hurt more than help our state. | ||
| Karen ,Sprout | The measures which are being proposed would cripple the citizens of New York who cannot afford all of these changes and would take away our freedom to make our own choices. Our electrical grid cannot support the demand that would be generated. We cannot afford electric cars and they are not practical or safe. Electricity needs to be generated using fossil fuels so we are not stopping their use by making everything electric. Please reconsider! | ||
| Thaddeus,Sendall | I am very excited by my state's leadership on clean energy and climate change. Please continue to forge ahead in the face of dishonest politicians like my senator, Robert Ortt. I received his emails just to be informed of his dishonest tactics, which is how I learned of the public comment period. Please keep up the good work in spite of his backward looking philosophy. | ||
| Douglas,Davis | I believe this not achievable due to we cannot build enough solar farms and wind farms to supply the electricity needs for everyone. I believe that hydrogen fuel engines one of the true answers to reduce pollution. There is zero emissions from hydrogen engines. The rest of the world are building more coal fired plants like India and China also some European countries. I don't believe government has the shut down Natural gas use it is a cheap source of power. I do not believe that the working class can afford to pay for the creating of this power. Oh by the way what do you do with farm equipment and construction equipment when you could be 3 counties when you run out of power and now way to charge the equipment, This type of equipment cannot run on electric for 24 hours a day at times. The cost of the equipment would be non affordable. Global change is not just due to humans, volcanoes spill more pollution in the air than humans due. We as humans have no idea of what cycles earth goes through, true north is changes so the world has to tipping on its axises | ||
| RAY,LAMB | I oppose your plan. It's ridiculous and will only force more people out of ny . | ||
| Bruce,Gammack | As a longtime public servant and resident of New York State I have the following comments. A little history is in order. Fifteen thousand years ago Western New York was covered with a mile thick sheet of ice. 350 million years ago we were inundated with a warm shallow sea. A short time and geologic history later the seed dried forming huge deposits of salt and gypsum from the evaporating sea water. None of these events were caused by humans. Natural cycles occur in North America every 15 to 25 thousand years in which there are is a cooling and warming trend. Once the Cycles begin they are inexorable. As an example I cite the following: the Continental margins are surrounded by thick deposits of sediment which contain tremendous quantities of a water clathrate called methane hydrate. Each volume of methane hydrate can out gas and form 150 volumes of natural gas. Without guessing occurs when the permafrost in the Arctic and Antarctic melt and the temperature rises above 50 degrees Fahrenheit. In the cycle as the temperature warms more methane hydrate will out gas releasing more methane and causing global warming regardless of what we do. You can check these facts out at the US geological website. There is over four thousand years of natural gas trapped in the sediments off the North Carolina coast. To think that you are going to change global warming is foolhardy by doing anything on the land. Three quarters of the earth is covered by water. The plan is adisaster. | ||
| Melanie,Reff | While I understand the ultimate goals of the proposals, I believe the timeframe to put into place the infrastructure to handle everything you propose is inadequate in duration. You will outlaw everything but electric by a certain date, but there will be no redundancy in place in time to handle all the pressure on our electric grid. Even now we have regular blackouts and brown outs. This is without a majority of people using only electric to heat their homes and charge their cars. Additionally, your plans will put undo pressure on many less affluent folks, some of whom are POC and minority groups, and many of whom are already disadvantaged in terms of work and educational opportunities, to purchase electric vehicles, which are currently priced at levels that are exclusionary to the general population. This is not even considering the cost of setting up charging stations in homes and the inevitable cost of battery replacement. And finally, current manufacturing/mining/disposal practices for obtaining the materials needed for green energy and batteries are hardly eco and carbon friendly. Until that issue is solved, why not try improving our current infrastructure while funding more robust research? | ||
| Silvano,Barbarigo | Dear Sir or Madam, I think that all senator Robert Ortt has already sayed it all ,how crazy and expensive this plan is and that after 2030 we will not be able to purchase any gas appliences is propasterus i I think this is going to be too expensive and not acievebal ,considering the burdun it will put on us senior citadins ,I can see that we will have to find refuge in others State and leave our beloved county and State to escape this TIRANY!!!! | ||
| LAWRENCE,SCHERER | Dear Sirs: Clearly climate action is necessary. It is good what changes will be taking place to address this issue are captured in this report. However, I think a good service addition would be to use an average residency in a rural, suburban, and urban setting to demonstrate how these changes will effect residents in these settings. There is a lot of information being circulated that the expense of these changes will be crippling. Is this really the case? Most likely in extreme cases, yes, but the average residency probably not so much. This report, and other public service information, could address this information vacuum. Additional clear information would be helpful how the current electrical infrastructure in our neighborhoods will handle this significant increase in electric energy delivery. Feel free to contact me. | ||
| Kris,Cocilova | I just wanted to comment on the move to all electric usage: home to vehicles. I believe that our current grid will not sustain this increase in electricity need, as in the summer months our grid can't handle everyone using the air conditioners. We currently have natural gas still at our disposal, so no need to get from foreign sources. Electric vehicles are unobtainable to most people, so who is is for??? How do we get rid of electric batteries, solar panels (how much are they really collecting ?) Are other states implementing these policies? If not, how do you make them comply or the world for that matter, China and India for example. We have states that don't even recycle and we can't even control that. People are already moving out of our state, maybe we should worry about children in schools, lower taxes, safety of our citizens, supporting our police, no more catch and release, etc..we have way more important issues that need immediate attention. These goals are out of reach and need to be thought through. Lets worry about the people of NY and not the radical left wing ideas. | ||
| Joseph,Peterson | You are insane if you think you can make households and new businesses go all electric. How are restaurants supposed to grill food with electric appliances? My most expensive home utility bill every month is the electric bill. This is what happens throughout history when the government forces change that technology is not ready for. It causes massive problems in society most importantly the overwhelming cost increases that the middle class can’t afford. The biggest question is where is all the new electric power coming from? You have gotten rid of power plants and haven’t allowed the construction of any new nuclear clean energy plants. There are already blackouts in numerous states because of electricity shortages. Government has all ready caused massive inflation and shortages of food, computer chips, vehicles, and baby formula and also with the looming lithium shortage where it’s mining is more destructive than oil and natural gas drilling. The government’s war on oil has caused monumental hardships in middle and lower class households. These nonsensical policies have turned the United States in a third world country, with the perfect example of our current administration patting itself on the back for bringing in baby food from other countries…what an embarrassment! People in power must have all failed their high school economics and history classes because they have not learned a thing from past historical events. NYS govt just loves control and these proposals will bankrupt middle and lower class America and continue to allow us to live like a third world country. Listen to the people, that is your job. The free market has already shown it is not ready for government forcing dramatic radical changes to the economy. The last two examples of big government was meddling with health care which caused rates to skyrocket in the following years and with the unconstitutional COVID lockdowns which destroyed the livelihoods of millions. | ||
| Kim,Phelan | As a life long resident of New York state, I am messaging you regarding Plans to eliminate new natural gas services and appliances in the future. This is a mistake on part of law makers. Why not offer incentives to switch to other systems and appliances, thereby allowing the public to to switch over when the new systems are m.ore economically feasible. I understand the need to go green, but we are no where ready to make the move now. I have taken pride in recycling more than I put out to the trash and I compost ALL my organics, so I try to do my part. As a senior on a fixed income there is no way I could afford a brand new electric car. Please reconsider these ideas to eliminate natural gas systems and appliances and gasoline operated vehicles until the right time. | ||
| Andrew,Avery | NY’s plan to eliminate natural gas use is shortsighted, and largely unworkable. Eliminating a highly efficient source of heating and cooking fuel will be costly, both in replacement costs for the fuel, and the cost to convert or replace HVAC and cooking appliances. Additionally, NY’s power grid is nowhere near capable of providing sufficient charging power for electric vehicles while simultaneously heating and cooling homes and supplying fuel for cooking. The plan should not strive to eliminate natural gas as a fuel source. | ||
| jennifer,Adams | unemployed | You people have lost your ever lovin minds. The Climate Change Globalist Hoax is exactly that, an unscientific debunked theory. It's just a power grab and money grab for the globalist agenda. You don't have the infrastructure to maintain what we have now and you actually think you can expand on these unsustainable, unreliable energy sources? It's laughable. We have the greatest power source in the Niagara Falls and you are using a fraction of its energy potential. You have a power grid that is barely maintained and fragile. Wind and solar have proven to be unreliable as evidenced by Texas last winter. Natural gas and electric vehicles are too expensive to purchase and maintain and use fossil fuels anyway to create their energy sources. You talk about green and the batteries and components of electric cars end up in land fills unable to be recycled. No blue collar worker can afford to buy them anyway. When a blizzard hits in NY you are gonna watch your battery drain to nothing and then the only thing you can do is tow it. You have to have a garage to plug it in, you don't have the electric infrastructure to support it. I know for a fact that natural gas vehicles break down constantly and are expensive to fix. Heat in Ny is mandatory, wind and solar are not reliable. Building housing with your ridiculous mandates will mean more people won't buy houses in NY. Seriously you people are a threat to society with your ridiculous agendas. Save NY, vote all of you out of here. | |
| Jeff,Wolk | I've lived in NY, raised my children, hired employees, started businesses, and cannot understand the incompetence of our political left. We all want a cleaner, safer planet, but we don't need your destructive economic policies to get there. China is building over 1000 new coal plants while you legislate our state out of economic survival. Get real and follow Ron DiSantis. He knows how to lead our nation to get things done. All you're doing is chasing our multigenerational families out of the state. If you work for a living, then New York will punish you until the day you die (or leave). I love this state, but thanks to your economic harming policies, I'll likely sell out and leave. Seriously - think before you legislate! Jeff Wolk | ||
| Mark,Onesi | The leadership of New York and the United States are in a hurry to decarbonize the public, while the burden they will place on our citizens will crush their ability to live. Rising fuel costs, marching mindlessly to electric cars only, and destroying our independence, in regards to energy, may sound good, but the cost and the burden placed on citizens to change in just a few short years is unfair and without a real plan that considers people. It may be good for the environment, but do we know the real long term effects of so many solar farms, windmills, and budget busting requirements being imposed on the little people. It is obvious that our political leaders in control have a blatant disregard for the public and are bent on destroying our economy and the livelyhoods of NY state citizens. Your plan is at best misguided and at its worst will jeopardize the ability of normal, every day people to meet these new, expensive demands and still provide for their family needs. Slow the train, develop a real plan, and investigate more fully the long term effects of the actions you are proposing. | ||
| Kim,Aulick | I absolutely reject the idea of elimination of natural gas. The average New Yorker will NOT be able to afford to retrofit their homes once a new appliance for heat, cooking, hot water, etc. is needed if they are forced to go electric. You are taking away our right to choose!!! NYC is getting power from the Astoria power peak station which uses natural gas to run the turbines but you want us to believe natural gas is bad. Natural gas does NOT cause the environmental harm you claim and you know it. You are trying to deceive the public so it's time we vote you OUT. Stop taking away our rights! We need government to protect and help the citizens, not babysit and control us. It's easy to see why so many people are leaving NY. You are driving them away so prices and taxes climb even higher to make up for the loss - which in turn drives more people and businesses away - a vicious circle. When are you going to be honest with yourselves that it is YOUR policies, recklessness in spending, and deceit that is destroying this state? | ||
| Thomas,Walker | Anyone that would vote to do away with Natural Gas needs to be taken out of office and put away ! You have got your heads up your you know where. You must be idiots if you can honestly think this is the right thing to do. Crazy is all I can say and I Vote !!!!!!! | ||
| Joseph,Mientkiewicz | Don’t pass the natural gas law! It’s not fair or responsible! | ||
| Michael ,Holbein | Palmyra Reformed Church | Totally opposed to government overreach of fossil fuel mandate proposal. Will persuade dozens more of my position! | |
| Susan ,Hassett | You come up with these ideas but you haven't taken into consideration that this country hasn't the infrastructure to put it in place. Our electrical grid will fail. We will need all new grids and wiring. What about brown outs? What about all the storms we are having. What is the plan to get me to work as my car isn't charged? Electric cars, how are they better. Low mileage for several people. Slow charging compared to a 5 minute fillup. And charge me a tax for using gas because I can't afford an electric car. Battery replacement, too expensive for the normal working class. Now I have a car I can't drive or pay for. No plan in place to recycle the batteries, how is that better for the environment? Aren't our landfills overflowing already? What about the batteries leaking into the earth? How are you going to stop chargers from catching fire? Are you going to give and install a home charger as I certainly can't afford one. Is the government going to pay to have my house converted over? I can't afford a conversion. You have big ideas but you make more than most people in this state and WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. So give me specific plans on how you plan to actually implement each and every change. Tell me how your going to pay for it without it touching my pocketbook. You pass this bill you will have more people leaving the state, I know I will | ||
| Mary,Maloney | This is an incredibly bad idea! Power grids are known to fail on a regular basis and if you make everything dependent on the grid the state will not only go bankrupt, but will end up looking and acting like a post apocalyptic state. I will be sure to leave this state if you follow thru on this stupidity! | ||
| Mary,Schneider | My husband and I are on fixed income and cannot afford to continue to pay for these high energy costs. We cannot afford an electric car. Our Government doesn’t care about the middle class. If this garbage legislation continues there won’t be any middle class left!!! Please put an end to this leftist agenda!! | ||
| Krista,Millspaugh | To whom it may concern, The New York economy cannot handle anymore foolish mistakes. The NYS government has made a disaster of our economy, to where an average family cannot pay for everyday bills because the prices for gas,oil,propane etc have gone through the roof . The Cuomo now Hochul administration don't have to worry about food prices skyrocketing and she's done nothing about lowering taxes,prices and anything else that might help NY taxpayers live day to day. Everything about NY state stinks right now and I don't see it getting better unless we throw away these ridiculous bills and focus on the problems that are going on here and now!!!! People are gonna leave NY and I don't blame them. If I get a chance to leave to,I'm taking it. So I hope the people of New York take our state back and vote these leftist radicals out of office. Krista Millspaugh | ||
| Sharon ,Reed | I support measures to mitigate climate change and pivot to renewable energy. | ||
| Barb,Kurzowski | When everything is electric and the power grid can't handle the usage and goes down what are you going to do then. So many decisions are made by clueless lawmakers without any thought before the aftermath that is created | ||
| Daniel,Mancuso | Common sense would tell us that cutting natural gas from new builds is not a very good idea. Please reconsider this new proposal. Electric and heat pumps only? Natural gas is a much better alternative to electric. Dan Mancuso | ||
| James ,Mulrenin | What I have to say the most is, where are we going to get the money for all the new things you want to change. I'm 66 and I won't be able to afford a new electric car. That is unless you plan on giving me the money. It's people like yourself but want to change these things because you have the money to be able to, what about us that don't ,are you gonna help us out I doubt it. Look New York has some of the highest taxes in the country what is wrong with you people lower the taxes for people 1st before you think to add to what they're gonna have to spend. there's something wrong with you when you think everybody has the type of money that you do, we don't and you should know that by now by all the poor places all the people being shot in places that's where the poor places are you just don't care enough to see what's going on with people stop this crap and let people live a normal life Without things being added to their bill that you keep sending every year well it's time New York steps up for the people like they should be | ||
| John,Owens | The plan to cut out natural gas is a plan for the further erosion of the NYS economy and population. For example, my house is run on gas (stove, water heater, furnace...). To convert to running on electricity I would have to have 220 lines run by a licensed electrician and then see my electric bill soar. How much more can the electric grid handle? How many will move to a friendlier state to live in? With our high taxes, the onerous addition of such legislation will continue the down-hill slide of NYS. | ||
| Frank,Miano | Dear Sirs, You were all voted with confidence to represent your constituents. Not change or make decisions that greatly reflect the financial impact of your proposals . Bring what ever deeds you concoct back to your districts and put them up for the voters to decide. What you are proposing will cause financial disaster to the all ready depleted state. Common sense is no longer in reach. Vote no! If change is what We the people want. WE will make that decision and pass it on to you as our public servants. NO! | ||
| David,McDonald | After careful review of the climate plan for NYS its very apparent the plan is to force this plan into action without due consideration of the oversll immediate impact on the hard working NYS residence. Inflation is at an all time high and this plan will add fuel to the inflation fire. To ask residence to completely replace furnaces, applances, vehicles air conditioning in the timeframe in this plan is beyond reason. I am suppose to replace my gas powered car that cost $20000 with a electric car that cost $50000? When I did a study on the effect of battery powered vehicles I found that in the long run they add to our climate problem. I implore you to look up the science concerning electric vrhivles snd overall effect on climate. Do not just assume the document in front of you is fact. Do your own personnel homework before you vote on this. Yes we need to work on climate change but you cannot do it over night without causing undue harm to New York families. Example: When our Governor ban coal tar in driveway sealer the price of the replacement went from $1 a gallon to $4 a gallon (wholesale) over night with a product far inferior. What she should have done was warn the industry of a impending change and give them time to develope a suitable product at a reasonable cost | ||
| James ,LaChat | There other ways to reduce climate change that are more practical. Your plan will put people out of work across the board. That’s not going to help the economy one bit. We have one of the wonders of the world that we use to produce electric power. Natural gas is the most efficient ways to heat homes especially in Western New York You people should look at how much energy it takes to mine bitcoins. Stop trying to ram your objectives down the throats of tax payers and start listening to what we want. Policies that my be good for down state are not good for Western New York. | ||
| Todd,Harmon | You can not just turn a switch and force people to change what kind of energy that they use. Natural gas is one of the cleanest natural resources the the earth has. If there is one source of energy being forced to be used (electricty) the cost will become unaffordable to the middle class. Battery operated vehicles are expensive to buy and maintain once the batteries need to be replaced. The old batteries are poison to the environment. New York Waste more money on laws that put more and more burden on its residents. This kind of change needs to take decades. | ||
| joseph,Pullano | Pullano | I think its crazy to stop using naturl gas for homes, applicances ,buildings and of course to stop compelely using gas for cars. It should be a choice if you want to change to alll electrict. You are forcinge natural gas and automakers companies and people with no choice in the matter an maybe causing a drop in jobs. Sincerely, Joseph Pullano | |
| BRAD,FREDERICK | I have been a consistent and common sense voice on New York’s costly energy policies. I’ve warned of the dark and unaffordable road we are heading down. By 2024, NYS Government wants no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings.What the F are you smoking? Are you sheep? Additionally, I heard you want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035. Klaus Schwab would be proud of you Communists! We know your taking dark money from them to destroy what's left of our country! You are not fooling anyone! By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany Bureaucrats are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. Put frankly: It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. Are you experiencing an energy affordability crisis with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills, and the highest gas prices on record? I think not! Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden everyday New Yorkers.! I have no choice but to speak up and use my voice. I cannot allow these disastrous policies to get rammed through unchecked, without input from myself!!!!!. Albany REJECT these plans to hike energy costs! Unless your Blackmailed and such...Heh | ||
| Laura,Sandino | New Yorkers are sick and tired of having liberal agendas shoved down our throats daily. Now you’re attacking energy when we’re paying through the roof prices to drive our vehicles and furnish our homes with natural gas to heat and cook. Electricity is generated through burning coal. Tell me how that’s clean and efficient. Stop the madness. Democrats just want to line their pockets and control people. None of you should be in office. I wholly reject your climate initiatives. | ||
| Brad,Orluk | To sum up my feelings on this entire plan, no. Incentivizing things like solar installations for residential property (and making standard for all municipal construction), seriously considering new nuclear power generation (this is the absolute best way to decarbonize while creating a massive amount of always on electrical generation), as well as reducing taxes for ALL residents is a start. The waste in this state is absolutely astounding and the handouts for people who chose not to work and nonresidents is unacceptable. If this plan passes as is, I will take my family and leave New York State. Taking with me my 6 figure income and tax payments (income, property, sales, real estate, gasoline, cellular, utilities, DMV, and all of the dozens of others such as the absurd “PaintCare” fee). | ||
| Charles ,Mantell | Having been employed as a HVAC technician in residential and commercial applications including Refrigeration this idea is flawed. With our colder climate heat pump do not work very well below 40 degrees and have to rely on electric heat while heat pump is in defrost mode.So basically you are paying for the compressor and electric at the same time when it is defrosting the coils which occurs a lot as it gets cooler and just electric heat when it is below 32 degrees. Not much efficiency there. Ground source heat pump requires deep drilling or a large area to recover the heat from the ground. Very costly and probably impossible for a city areas. Most of the building do not have the correct insulation and proper sealing for the low temperature rises with electric heat and losses will create a high demand on the electric system because people will still be cold. The electric grid will be stressed to failure with electric heat and electric vehicles. You’ve already shut down many power plants coal generating such as Huntley in Tonawanda and now we don’t have any kind of thoughts on what we’re going to use to make up all this power. Imagine a blizzard with 80 cars stuck on the Thruway with dead batteries and no power. no way to get to the people freezing to death any thoughts to that how you gonna get these electric cars off the Thruway? Electric cars lose the range when it gets cold, what are you gonna do about the recovery and reclaiming all these vehicles batteries as They are glued together with a epoxy and hazardous waste. I think you’ll be smarter to work on creating better building efficiency and better heating efficiencies and then slowly transition to electric heat as you upgrade the electric grid and answer all these questions. Good analogy is putting a 98% efficient furnace in the 1800s era house with no insulation and stone walls and single pane glass don’t really make a lot of sense does it? Ran out of words sorr | ||
| Douglas,Elia | We need natural gas. The grid is not ready to pick up this much added demand. I have heard from both gas and electric companies that says this is not a good idea and electric companies will benefit from increased market share. If the electric company doesn’t like it, it’s not good. Further, NYS will push away industries that need natural gas for their production process; this is not good for the economy. Lastly, who is going to pay home owners for upgrades to their homes; when a gas furnace goes and there isn’t one to buy, paying for the electric and service upgrade will be debilitating. And, don’t cover the upgrade with government subsidies; enough with the hand outs. I’m totally against the idea of getting rid of natural gas especially when it is becoming cleaner. | ||
| Jeanine,Gillotti | I just think that the no gas law is plan out stupid! Our electrical grid is unstable as it is. What will happen when there is a power failure? We need gas for generators especially in hospitals and to heat our homes. To outlaw had, wood burning and any other type of heating fuel is outrageous! We have been using natural heating for thousands of years. What about cars? Every house can not afford the plug ins how are they going to be paid for? What if the car has an electric problem? Do they have back up batteries? How are lawn companies supposed to use there equipment with out gas? What about the pollution that electricity gives off? Who's going to help with the electric bills? Gas is cheaper. NYS will lose alot more business and people. They didn't think about that did they? But it's ok for propane use? How are campgrounds supposed to survive if no fires are allowed because you can't burn wood? Wood is the best thing to use it's safe and natural. Gas is used to help with energy costs. What about desil engines? Cole burning stoves? What about batteries? Thoes all let off more pollution then gas. Banning all of these energy sources are not going to put a dent in the golbal warming or global pollution. NYS is not going to end pollution or global warming. There's other places that use gas and oil too around the world. It's just a stupid law with no back up plans if things go wrong. This is why people hate NYS state and don't want to bring businesses here. It's cost are too high for everything and the taxes are a joke! I would love to leave NYS but not able to at this time. | ||
| Matt ,M | I do not agree with anything new York is doing to screw over its residents | ||
| Ron,Kemp | I firmly believe in States Rights, however Climate Policy should be set by the Federal Government. The last thing NY needs is to drive more business out. Whatever NY does will have an unmeasurable effect on the environment. Do something meaningful instead such as reducing the size and reach of state government. Lower taxes. Give residents a reason to stay. | ||
| Henry ,Beghini | These policies will only make NYS less competitive than many other states in attracting businesses and people. It will speed up the population loss and make no measurable difference in climate change. Policies must be nationwide and world wide to truly make a difference | ||
| Michael,Hoffman | Hello, I fully support these efforts to bring New York forward into the next stage of energy and environmental actions. While energy demands are going to keep on rising, the ability to meet those needs in an environmentally sound way is essential. Remaining reliant on fossil fuels would be a short sighted, lazy non-plan. I believe that anyone who seriously considers where we're heading understands the effort and investment necessary to make the transition successful. There won't be an easy solution for a problem that's been brewing for two centuries. A key aspect of making this a success is to not discount and be demoralized by slow progress, and also to report very thoroughly. Good data is needed, and there are certainly parties that will seek to obscure the true data regarding the impact of their activities. Be sure to keep a close eye on them and keep them honest. Sincerely, Michael Hoffman | ||
| Carole,Freeman | Stop all plans to hike energy price's they are out of control already. We cannot afford anymore. Think of those struggling that your supposed to be serving. Please do the right thing. | ||
| Kenneth,Kinecki | I strongly disagree with these proposals to remove natural gas service and mandate use of electric appliances in residences. Natural gas is abundant and could be economical if the government would remove burdensome policies and regulations. The US has already met the Paris Accord targets through the advancements make in a free market system. Every policy should be designed to lower the costs of energy across all sectors. The best way to promote green energy is to have a strong economy that will provide high return on investments for future energy development. | ||
| Penny,Czerwinski | I strongly disagree with the eventual banning of gas powered appliances. These are highly energy efficient and contribute far less emissions than home heating systems do. I would like to see that provision revised so that consumers can choose which type appliance is most beneficial to them. | ||
| Kyle,Hovak | New York state is a mess due to all this crazy democrat/tree hugger agenda. Wind and solar are not the answer or are they sustainable. Our crazy so called leaders want to tax us to death while giving hand outs to people who want to sit home and do nothing. New York could be an amazing state if the down state clowns could get their heads out of their asses. Its sad that a politician turns into a millionaire on their salaries. Follow the corrupt and the money trail. Bail reform is a freaking joke. Crazy democrats are getting innocent people killed by letting criminals run free. Get rid of Hocul and that career scum Schumer. They will continue to add zero value. | ||
| Patricia ,Evans | This is not the time for this radical legislation. You will cost New Yorkers enormous amounts of money if this bill is enacted. | ||
| Teresa,Mceathron | Stop making it hard for us New Yorkers to live we need the propane for heating and living. I hope it's not to hard to think about everyone. It's getting ridiculous. Have love for everyone please. | ||
| Jody,Anthony | Reject this plan now. It will not secede at this time. Successful infrastructure must be created before cribbing our safe energy existence.Your time lines are not achievable. Do not destroy our state and put people in harms way. | ||
| james,bonus | I am opposed to all the your committee is proposing! Why is it that you progressive liberals always create legislation that disrupts a citizen’s way of life and will cost us so much money? Our electric grid is not capable of conducting the power need to achieve what you propose, let alone generate it. I remember 15years ago that LNG power busses and trucks where the way to go because they where clean. Apparently not any more according to you!!!! So a home owner who typically has a 100 amp service will need to spend a considerable amount of money buy adding a new service and interior wiring just comply with your proposed regulations. So what is the restaurant business that cooks on natural gas to do???? Can’t cook in a Wouk on a electric stove!! All of you need to be replace along with the people who put this committee to gather | ||
| Don,Batalaris | NYSE&G just submitted a request for a rate increase in the double digit range. Their claim is our infrastructure is in need of upgrades. The poor and lower middle class cannot afford this. The changes proposed will further strain the infrastructure and cause increases in cost that will be passed on to the consumer, that includes the poor and families. | ||
| Johnathan,Clemons | My problem with the energy change to no gas in new homes/ buildings, cars, and heating/ appliances is going to all electric when our power grid isn’t strong enough for it. My other question is are you paying for it because it’s going to cost a lot and I don’t mean by increasing the taxes. To fix that it’s to much money we are already over taxed and underpaid here in NY. Milking us for more money when we are already stretched thin and we have other issues we should be focusing on over the changing to electric. Some examples that you should focus on are homelessness or maybe bringing more jobs here to the state. My other concern is there is no backup to electric other than fossil fuels so if the grid goes out during the cold months and it does backup generators run off natural gas so you have the potential of a big major crisis. | ||
| Shawn,Halquist | While the guardianship of our planet is everyone’s responsibility, acting in a rash and hasty fashion does no one any good. The infrastructure needed to meet such an audacious timeline does not exist and will not for decades to come. Should it be created? Yes, or certainly be a goal in the decades coming. If it’s rushed, it will not work or meet the very idealistic plans that are being put forth. There are areas of this great state that have dirt roads covering large swathes of their counties. How about we try a more realistic approach: pick a small area and pilot a project like this and see if it works financially and meets the quality of life we are accustomed to. Then, if all is well, increase the scope in the most logical way for all of NY. | ||
| Stephanie,Callari | Please put your time, energy and expertise to something that will make us better. We need to get back on our feet before we start any new projects that apparently have not been thought through. | ||
| Dewayne ,Cummings | |||
| Christopher,Farley | Please stop trying to force green energy down our throats. This ridiculous plan will only lead to much higher costs and less dependable energy. If you want to go for renewable energy please research nuclear. Oil and fossil fuels are still needed while we transition naturally. Hard dates and stopping production will not help anyone. Let the transition happen naturally. | ||
| Gary,Arcadi | Why you would take the most stable and reliable energy source away from buildings is beyond me. To transition to electricity is possible but would take eons of time. NYS doesn't have the electrical resources including generation and distribution to accomplish such a monumental feat. I don't think it could happen; not even in fifty years. Don't forget you also want to add ev stations to the equation. This whole thing is nothing but a pipe dream. Like all the other half baked technical strategies this nation is embarking on, this will have disastrous results for the well being of NYS. Yes I want to see a clean environment, but take care of it in a well thought out, practical manner, and let technology make the transition in a normal and natural manner as history has shown how the advancements in all avenues of science, have achieved an unchaotic and orderly advance in technology. The advancements in home heating has proven that; with furnaces achieving 96% efficiency ratings and better, gone from the days of 75% - 80% ratings. Politicians should stay out of it, they are not engineers. Just present the engineers the problems and step aside and watch the advancements happen in time. Instead your totally going to ruin the energy industry and destroy the economy of this state. California is a fine example of a disastrous mess. | ||
| Pete,Ames | STOP THIS MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I understand that we may want to transition to non fossil fuels some day, but not today. Start slowly and smartly. Maybe begin with hybrid vehicles to cut down on gas consumption, but not total electric. The grid is already overworked. Imagine how bad it would get if you switch totally to electric. SOLAR AND WIND are NOT efficient. NATURAL GAS is an excellent way to cook. ELECTRIC stoves SUCK! You are killing us with your stupid ideas, and it has to stop. There is going to be a revolution and I hope that it doesn't come to that. You have ZERO common sense and if you keep pushing these liberal ideas, you will destroy this fine country. Whoever is running this state is doing a S--- job and we are paying the price. GET BACK TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PUT YOU IN POWER! You don't represent US. | ||
| Carolyn,Gendre | I disagree that this is the time to "decarbonize" our economy. Many people (farmers and business owners in particular) in New York State are struggling financially. These "plans" will add extra financial stress on everyone. I totally disagree with many of the recommendations in the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan which: phases out the sale of gasoline powered cars, does not allow sale of new natural gas appliances for homes needing to replace existing natural gas appliances, and does not allow new gas service to existing buildings or newly constructed single-family homes. Over half of the homes in NY use natural gas as a home heating source. Many businesses also use natural gas. It is my opinion that trying to completely change everything from natural gas to electric would be financially harmful to many families and businesses. Natural gas is often much cheaper than electric and much more dependable, depending on the appliance. In my opinion, this transition would really place more hardship on our farmers. They would eventually be required to replace most/all or their machinery/equipment that they now use. They would also be required to purchase and/or abide by guidelines for feeding their livestock and management of the livestock waste. All this extra demand on our farmers could very possibly wreck the farming industry and create more financial problems for the state of New York. | ||
| Michelle,Barbarossa Robinson | All of these plans seem unsustainable and costly to citizens already struggling. The reality is that the carbon emissions for electric vehicle production, emissions from tire wear and landfill toxicity (lack of recycle ability) of batteries is more harmful than using gas vehicles with improved fuel. Natural gas has always been a safe, reliable source of energy. Average citizens and family farmers are supposed to use electric tractors and lawn maintenance equipment? It’s not practical to think alternative sources of power will be sufficient-that is already evident all over the country where “green” energy transitions have begun. You do realize NY is more than NYC? The effect this would have on the average citizen would send us to other states by the millions. We are already planning the day we can leave NY and take our children with us. You think you score political talking point wins with this “green” energy, “environmental equity” nonsense. You are not! You are destroying my an already damned NY. I say NO to all of this. Start over and come up with a reasonable, achievable plan. | ||
| Andrew ,Ilacqua | Are you people completely clueless. I don’t know where to begin Farm equipment zero emissions? You will run every small farm out of business. I’m sure your corporate donors will be fine with that. No new gas appliances after 2030? Is the state going to subsidize everyone on a fixed income to upgrade their electric service to accommodate this? Can our electrical grid even support this? What will happen to the rural residents during a power outage in the winter? Just freeze because they are the last to get power restored? I am all for getting greener. Let’s start with stricter regulations on the big corporations. Shut down data mining facilities like the one in Dresden NY. I can go on and on but I’m sure I’m wasting my time on a politician that only really cares about getting re-elected | ||
| gerald,caughell | I do not agree with this. Please REJECT in it's entirety. | ||
| Ramon,Cancilleri | This is the most insane proposal I have ever seen! There is enough Natural Gas in NYS to keep us independent and sustainable the foreseeable future! Our homes do not have enough electrical capacity to make this achievable. The high cost of all energy now and in the future will be born by the WORKING taxpayers! We are heavily burdened today and will be crushed if this is implemented!!! For the love of god, bury this NOW! | ||
| DAVID,MAYNE | RETIRED | follows: 1. Fully utilize the available fossil fuel resources of the United States 2. Invest in more nuclear power plants and recommission those which have been moth balled. 3. Stop subsidizing solar energy and wind farms. 4. Stop the rush towards electric vehicles and totally electric buildings Until the “GRID” is capable of supporting the KW load. 5. Use common sense and logic. | |
| Craig,Parsons | This is insane! Not feasible, not affordable, and just plain dumb! While protecting the planet is a nice thought and perhaps someday more can be accomplished to do so. Now (and this proposed timeframe are not)! Today's alternatives are not practical or affordable. Wind is a pipe dream. Has been for many years as I had researched this when a local school proposed a windmill for energy savings and "educational purposes". It wouldn't produce enough energy to pay for itself prior to the turbine wearing out and replacing that would cost nearly as much as the original windmill. A N.Y. State employee involved in the process admitted to me that they were not cost effective and his hands were tied in signing approvals for these projects even so. Solar is nice. It's installed broadly (where subsidized by our tax dollars). Not many would do so if not subsidized and it loses effectiveness over time. How are all those panels being disposed of? How much land is required? Electric vehicles? Short on range, high on cost, costly in terms of production of batteries (mined by child labor in third world countries). Unfortunately, we are not ready for these pipe dreams of "zero emissions". Maybe (hopefully) someday, but for now these plans are unrealistic and will cause nothing but pain and suffering for all New Yorkers. I suggest backing off on this aggressive agenda until feasible, affordable alternatives are available. | ||
| Lloyd,Williams | The Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce | ||
| Kim,Carr | I strongly oppose the rate st which these 'climate friendly' demands will place on working class and the poor in NYS. Millions struggle to achieve the dream of home ownership these unrealistic, ill prepared demands will bankrupt regular NY residents. There obviously is little concern for the burden this will place on families. Do you represent all NY citizens or only a select few? If administration truly values voter integrity, then climate council plans must be on the ballot | ||
| Carl,Tobin | I'm not about to read all this drivel. Wish I could afford to leave New York... FOREVER! I strongly oppose everything your brochure reflects as being "What's in the plan"! | ||
| Walter,Keller | There is no way the grid is going to be ready for any of this, it can't even handle current demand. We must keep the ability to use wood, coal, oil and gas for the dependability factor. People will die in their homes from freezing and/or overheating when the power goes out. | ||
| James,Madalena | Upon review of the worthwhile goals set by the committees, I believe we must also be realistic about how these goals are achieved. To set certain timelines to target the goals set forth is all well and good, however we must be prepared to assure that the electrical grid is adequate to handle our power needs and that the sources of our future energy supply is reliable for building our economy and meeting power demands at peak hours during the summer heat and winter cold extremes. All forms of energy sources need to be incorporated into our grid, including nuclear and natural gas for a back up source when demands cannot be met from wind and solar. To not include these sources would be ignorant to the fact that renewable energy sources are not 100% reliable. Lastly the best way to achieve “climate justice” is to provide affordable and abundant energy for ALL. | ||
| Randall,Ferris | Dear NY leadership I would like to think that your decisions were based on lack of knowledge but I don’t believe this. I think your moves are to lock control on our energy at the governmental level just like state owned energy in Venezuela. I’m all for a better climate but I think it’s achievable by using the already plentiful clean natural gas that we already have beneath our feet. I am almost positive that somebody has explained the basic electrical concept to you and how it’s made and storage of such energy. These also will impact the climate far beyond systems we already have in place. Keep dosing what your doing as people are fleeing this state and NY moves down the list of popular state. It will be interesting see how your over bloated government will stay a float. I’m sure us over taxed tax payers will not shed a tear as we already feel the pain your poorly run government makes us feel. | ||
| Angela,Magin | This plan is outrageous. How dare you submit a bill to be voted on without completing a cost-benefit analysis for all New Yorkers to see. Is our grid even prepared for this? I understand wanting to reduce emissions and conserve our resources, but it makes zero sense to do this without adequate planning. I am also VERY concerned about the mileage-based user fee. Have you considered that this would go against one of NY's largest initiatives....DEI?!?! Electric vehicles are incredibly expensive and only a very small portion of the population can afford to own them. Is increasing the tax burden on our poorest citizens equitable? How will this encourage people to go back to work?? Working will simply cost the working public more. How about our home healthcare professionals?? We are already incredibly short-staffed!! Who will go into this field if their job will cost them even more to do? That will impact our most vulnerable homebound residents the most. Honestly, all of you politicians are so out of touch with what the average citizen is going through. You are making our once great state fall at a rate I cannot even comprehend. | ||
| Stacie ,Cooley | please consider how much this will cost the people of the state. How are you going to assist us with making these changes? | ||
| Yvonne,Moore | We will never be able to do enough in this area to make it worthwhile. To put public transportation in rural areas is impractical. It would never work. It would not be financially or practically feasible because you could never have availability for everyone's employment, financial, appointment, entertainment, medical, shopping, emergency etc needs. Electric cars are not practical in rural areas due to the distances and availability for charging services. Electric cars cost too much. The average American citizen cannot afford one. Also the production of electric cars relies on many of the fossil fuels that you claim are so dangerous . Therefore they do not get us away from the need for fossil fuels .They are not practical for long distances nor in traffic jam situations nor in traffic backups due to accidents on highways. Making everything depend on electricity is not practical in instances when the power goes out. People need the availability of using gas and wood for heat and cooking most especially when the power goes out in the winter. The changes this plan suggest are too costly for New Yorkers and will not provide the grand benefits that you purport especially when considering that countries like China and India and numerous others will never participate in these endeavors. There are so many things about this plan that are not good for New Yorkers. I could never begin to address them all here.PLEASE do not implement this plan in New York!! | ||
| Dale,Gregory | Three Arrows Corporation | I make it a point not to comment on issues I'm not immersed in but I'm going to make an exception since I believe a number of conclusions and entire plans of action have been arrived at using a series of premises that may or may not be based in fact. There are a number of ways to reduce carbon emissions - the use of natural gas is just one. Why wage an immediate war on a staple source of energy? Anytime I read anything pertaining to "Climate Justice" or climate equity, I can be sure that some well-intentioned progressive individual was allowed to formulate yet more ill-conceived policy. That being said, the several segments highlighted in the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce newsletter would be sufficient to raise the ire of a great many individuals as citizens or business leaders. No new gas service to existing buildings beginning 2024? Prohibit traditional heating systems in homes in 2030? A CAC created via the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is a ghost group of appointed, rather than elected officials (who should have the backbone to propose their own foolish agenda and they've proven capable of such things). Absent a viable technology to replace current majority use fuels, creating an aggressive schedule to supplant these materials with the green dream is pure folly. You can see what the federal push to artificially inflate the price of gasoline is doing. Do you think for a moment that people and organizations can tolerate the economic turmoil that will be foisted upon them? The mass exodus in population from NY will pale compared to what implementation of this nonsense will inspire. This is all very interesting but should find its way to the ashbin (while some exist) of history. | |
| Amy,Lapp | I am opposed to ALL legislation that limits our rights to choose energy sources. Natural Gas is clean burning fuel. Your argument that it is damaging the environment is not valid. How is the electric being generated for all appliances and cars if not via petroleum products and natural gas? The lithium for batteries for cars Is mined by slave child labor. I am opposed to electric cars for this reason. Why not fuel cars with water? (like the model that was developed in the 1970’s but quickly shutdown because oil producers realized it would cut into their profits. Or Fuel cars with cooking oil ? Wouldn’t plant based fuel be better for the environment than anything else? I do not support the legislation of Bill A.7524A There are better options available than banning gas cars and appliances to help the environment. | ||
| william,walters | Tax payers can not afford any of these at this time. | ||
| William,Biroscak | Resident | As a long standing resident of this state I find it sad to say the least that this state would find more ways to shove people into moving out of state. I for one plan to at retirement in 5 years. But my kids live here (I have always told them to GET OUT!. They will figure it out,They are aot there. It also amazes me the large amounts of money this state Wasts on ridiculously overpriced searching that is suposidly to our benifits. WELL IT IS NOT, ONLY THE STATES BENIFIT. So in short this is the best way to make N.Y. the GOST STATE. I WILL NOT COMPLY! | |
| L,LeBlanc | This plan will further cripple the state as far as economic development is concerned. As a real estate investor and business owner, I plan to sell all my investments and invest in saner states. I have nothing against "alternative" forms of energy however, they should be used in conjunction with the tried and true which has become much cleaner due to research and development (oil, propane, natural gas, nuclear, hydro). | ||
| David,Tomasso | I support reasonable efforts to fight climate change, but fear that NY is on a path which would create huge financial hardship for my family, and serious problems for the state. If the Climate Action Council’s scoping plans are not changed, homeowners would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert their home to electric heat pumps, stoves, and water heaters. We would be penalized with carbon taxes or surcharges on other fuels. NY’s electric rates are already among the highest in the country, and we report the most outages of any state in the mid-Atlantic. The rapid, untested changes to the electric grid are likely to send electric rates even higher and compromise the resilience of the electric grid. I don’t believe we have a good enough understanding of the real costs and risks of these plans, and there will be a backlash when their impact is felt. Our path forward should not ban fuels like natural gas, propane gas and biofuel heating oil which can get increasingly renewable. We can reduce carbon output significantly without putting all our eggs in one fragile, expensive electric basket. We are moving too far, too fast, with too much risk and cost. I urge you to support a broader path to a cleaner energy future. People like you only look at the "facts" that support your radical position and not ALL the facts presented by scientific evidence. You are playing politics! | ||
| Joseph,Hadac | I'm happy that New York is actively doing something. I personally think this action might be too late but something is better than nothing. Humanity has always been good at adapting to our environment. This is the next great adaptation we must make. I just hope it is done efficiently and with transparency. | ||
| Crystal,Wager | I would like a cost/benefit analysis done as to the success of this potential program. Slow down and analyze the data. Our temperatures are not rising. You only have been tracking for 120 years? That is not science. Our amazing earth has the ability to adjust. To think we humans can control the climate is far reaching hopes. Wise energy choices can be made available but should be optional for economical challenged portions of our society. Choice is a freedom under our Constitution. | ||
| David,Winslow | This entire plan incomprehensible. The time lines are unreasonable. The costs to the homeowner is unreasonable, unfair and just plain crazy. I do not understand how the government has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy. If the government thinks we can get all of our energy needs from solar and wind, they are out of their minds. I am all for choice, not having this plan stuffed down our throat's by Albany. This plan will cost the taxpayers of New York far more for our energy usage than we pay now. | ||
| Faith,Marshall | To whom it may concern, I moved to Elmira in 2015 to eventually retire and live close to family members. I now am concerned that I will need to move out of the state. With this new, proposed plan of eliminating gas from the state, the cost to live here will be prohibitive. I cannot afford an average increase of $35,000 to my budget. I understand looking for new ways to combate climate change but this is NOT the way. We should be using our natural resource (gas, which is clean) WHILE looking for alternatives. We can do both! We already have the best, lowest emissions in the world so I do not see the hurry to take away gas from our households. This is a drastic measure that will forever hurt the residents of this state. I live on a fixed income and cannot afford these new policies. I believe the majority of New Yorkers are in the same boat. Especially, right now! We have high inflation, ridiculous gas prices and supply shortages that will not be changing anytime soon. New Yorkers and Americans, alike, are suffering with the policies made by the current government. It seems to me that there is absolutely no concern about the average American. We need New York State to help its residents, not inflict further pain. If this plan goes through, I will have to move out of state ... a state that I was born and grew up in. What a shame! | ||
| Gary,Smith | New York's Plan to ban natural gas for all-electric usage will lead us off a renewable Energy Cliff. It's a failed approach that pursues unattainable green-energy goals instead of realistic ones. Can't we learn from what is happening in California's failed playbook? New Yorkers have left our state in droves we lost over 19.5 billion dollars of income that left the state last year the people who can afford to leave are leaving. This will only hasten the problem even if we had the electrical production to make this change. The cost of this will crush the consumers. A bad idea, at a bad time on an unrealistic timetable Gary Smith --------- | ||
| Wilfredo ,Contes | All Of This Is Nothing But Another Failed Con That Al Gore Has Been Tryong To Con Americans From The 1970s Acid Rain , Polar Caps Melting , Ozone Layer , Global Warming And Now This You Guys Truly Are Idiots , Nobody's Buying That S---. | ||
| Todd,Strelow | New York's plan to to ban the use of fossil fuels is economically unfeasible, and will disproportionately cause financial harm to lower income people. How is burning natural gas to generate electricity to heat homes more efficient than just heating homes with natural gas? More harm is done to the environment in the name of battling "climate change" than any positive change is accomplished- just look at the ethanol in gasoline debacle. There are better ways to reduce human impact on the environment, stop listening only to the climate alarmists. | ||
| Jon,Coykendall | Home | While the proposal is well thought out it's goals and time lines are unrealistic. First the thought of all drivers in NY could afford a new electric automobile is out of the question until prices are within reach. Then you have the milage factor, 200 to 300 miles on a charge, less in cold climates, where has will give at least 500 to 700 miles per tank, and weather is much less a factor. Then you have the price of electricity which will be much more expensive as you begin to use more. Then you have the grid itself, it can't handle increased use in the summer with out power failures, now you want to add more? 10 years is not enough time to solve all these issues maybe 20 years but more like 30 years. Let's get real and find real answers | |
| Christopher,Pletcher | 1) Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, increasing to 80% by 2030. ? Require a per ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, while also expanding policies and programs to encourage individual and large-scale reuse of building materials. ? Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot programs. ? Develop public informational resources working in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (state agencies, local governments, contractors, property owners). ? Support local governments to adopt requirements that all sites slated for full removal must be deconstructed rather than demolished by 2026. 2) Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. ? Adopt codes for new construction that enable the incorporation of reused materials. ? Support workforce training of green jobs, with deconstruction as an important component. ? Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. ? Enact a production tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into intermediate products to locate facilities in New York. ? Provide financial support to municipalities/counties for the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges. 3) Develop plans to divert concrete and asphalt, CCD’s two largest components, from waste streams. ? Require local governments, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to use a paving base of 100 percent recycled asphalt and concrete, and and to encourage on-site street recycling that includes recycled aggregate. ? Establish an environmentally sound plan for waste resulting from the demolition of New York’s interstate highways. ? Support research, facilities, and programs that focus on the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt shingles, gypsum (drywall) and masonry. | ||
| Dale,Lewis | While implementing this plan will be hard and cause economic pain to many if not most upstate citizens, I feel that the state must go forward with it. The only proposal that I object to is no new gasoline auto sales in NYS from 2035 onward. Perhaps the cost, range, and recharging issues that EV's currently have will be settled by then but I would prefer to let the marketplace decide when that happens. Distances and weather affect upstate EV capabilities more than localized driving downstate, currently. No NEW gasoline auto sales also means that the used car market prices will "skyrocket" further hurting upstate citizens additionally. | ||
| Michael,Murphy | If you vote for these changes that take away clean, efficient natural gas, you can count on me not voting for you. It’s proven that electric utilities here in NYS ARE EXPENSIVE! Look at the fact the utility grid is aging and cannot handle the proposed increase in demand for electricity. And you want to tax me even MORE to drive a gas vehicle? Go f--- yourselves. | ||
| Philippe,Laperle | I refer you to patent U.S. Patent 4,319,546 granted to Moses Beden on March 16, 1882titled Hydraulic Combustion Engine. The invention is based on Pascal's law: Pascal's law says that pressure applied to an enclosed fluid will be transmitted without a change in magnitude to every point of the fluid and to the walls of the container. The pressure at any point in the fluid is equal in all directions. The formula is P = F/A. The claim is that this engine achieves 200 miles per gallon of any fuel with virtually zero emissions, i.e., no pollutants. So, you see the technology exists already to solve the emissions problems from fossil fuel powered engines. Rather than coerce people to follow hurtful policies regarding climate change, should New York instead challenge the automotive industry to produce a car with said engine that will allow the fossil fuels to last for centuries. Either by means of this engine or by means of electric powered vehicles the reduction of pollutants with cause a decrease in particulate matter in the atmosphere and lead to the heating of the oceans causing an increase in the number of global hurricanes. Science and technology produce an abundance of new information, but the politics of economic development and subjective assessments of this knowledge for the sake of acquiring a larger piece of the money pie will eventually lead to civil unrest where at this writing a majority of the population in the United States as at the poverty level or close to it. Is it not the function of government to protect its citizens rather than give lip service to its security and drive them to civil unrest. Sincerely, Philippe Laperle Keeseville, New York | ||
| Kevin,Everly | Just another unfunded poorly planned mandate from Albany. The poorest among us will be the ones to bare the burden. Businesses will locate elsewhere costing jobs and lowering the standard of living even further. Do you people even have a clue what it's like to work for a living? Every time I read an article about the political garbage that gets suggested by Albany politicians I think of moving out of this once great state. | ||
| Kenneth,Kowalski | I am responding to the New York 2019 Climate Act which I am opposed to. As a hard working middle class citizen the financial burden that this act will cause great financial harm to not only myself but to all the citizens of New York. Back in the early 1990s I converted from all electric to natural gas. I replaced my electric furnace, electric hot water tank and electric dryer to all natural gas. At the time I was on all electric I was paying $300.00 per month. When I switched over to natural gas, my bill for natural gas and electricity was a total of $92.00 per month. I am only paying $112.00 per month now. Your bill wants us New Yorkers to convert to all electricity. I don’t know what my all electric bill would be but I have heard that I could be paying up to six times more that I am currently paying for natural gas. If this is the case, then there will be a mass exodus of people and businesses leaving New York State because who wants to pay such high prices for maintaining our home and buildings. If the Climate Act is not changed or rescinded, have you even considered the strain it would put on our electric grid system. We will be have blackouts and/or brownouts just about every day. Also consider the voters mood when we go to the polls to vote. I guarantee that every state official from the governor to all the state legislators who voted to pass this climate act will be voted out of office. Remember when the voters are facing tough economic hardship, new people are voted in to replace the current office holders. Also if you want cleaner air and water then tell our state elected officials to tell our federal elected officials to go after China and India who are the worst polluters in the world. In America we have one of the cleanest air and water in the world. I am asking our governor and state legislators to scrap this plan to electrify New York State. If this stays in place consider what your next career move will be when you are voted out of office. | ||
| D,Bacon | I am tired of all this Green Emmisions. with the higher cost of the economy we need to stop all this garbage things that the governemtn want to put into place. most of those things are nothing but costing the people more money and we can not afford this. WE need to go back to the old time living that cost everyone LESS and made people able to afford some things. I say we go back to wood buring heat and wood buring stoves and stop all this high cost of electric. The normal low income and middle income people can not afford the electric. FOr me I would NEVER buy an electric car and I am tired of the high cost of living that you are making with all this junk and garbage laws and regulartions that you are pushing down out throats. IT is time we had less regulations and less laws and less demands that the government seems to want to push on the people. I see the governement as a demanding and controlling organization of people that are money hungry and do not care about the people only thier pockets. there is to much government control and government making laws to make them look good where the down to eath low income never really get a say in how they feel or thing. Time to get rid of any government person that has been in office more than twice. | ||
| Kaitlyn ,Bentley | Table 12 should be Herd Management not Heard Please use public outreach when making decisions on agriculture. There are so many organizations that can tell you the real life scenarios and what’s actually happening in the world today before making unrealistic regulations. If you want food security work with farms not against them. We benefit the environment and feed the world, while simultaneously getting the s--- end of the stick with market pricing, weather, and attitudes from the general public and the legislature. | ||
| Kaitlyn ,Bentley | Chapter 3: going for zero emission off road equipment may not be feasible for the ag sector when it comes to harvesting or planting. When crops need to get planted, ground fitted or harvested it is a race against time and if the thought is to have electric equipment that needs to charge. The phrase “farmers work in acres not hours” is a very real concern. We can’t have our equipment run out of juice with no way to get it back running within a matter of minute or hours. Time is something that farmers never have any extra of and waiting for a tractor to charge would be such a burden that food security would suffer due to lack of efficiency and low to potentially no yield. Chapter 4: should also include pastured land as well as crop land for carbon sequestration a long term grass pasture for livestock is a major benefit as far as a carbon sink goes. Also , trying to site solar on existing brown fields, on buildings, or industrial sites would be a more proper way to go about the solar energy idea. You cannot keep relying on Agriculture to keep having any spare space when we are a major benefit to the green spaces that we maintain and flourish on. Chapter 6: I don’t know if femmes was really the word that should have been used seems a little derogatory to some. In the table: making the Ag sector suffer more regulation is no the way to go about getting everyone on board. Farmers know first hand how their land produces and are open to new ideas but not something that is regulated and may be the absolute wrong way to go on their properties. You need At to continue to support education and new ideas not slap them in the face with more regulations and to be told they aren’t doing well enough. Keeping the mental health of key stakeholders in mind should be your top priority. Trying to encourage more organic production is also short sited and just using a buzzword gimmick: organic farming takes more land use, labor, and fuel to produce. | ||
| Steven,Heltemes | Has a study been done on the actual cost for this initiative? I don’t think so. I am in full support of Legislation A.7524A. No, and I mean NO future should proceed until a full cost analysis is completed. Also, add the the loss of future income (Sales Tax) for those people who will go out of state to purchase vehicle not available in NY. Finally the eliminate of natural gas for residential use is ludicrous. Whoever added that clause should be in-elected. | ||
| Mary Margaret,Thumm | I prefer to cook, and heat my house with natural gas. Are you going to give me the money to follow your plan? I live in the middle of nowhere in Upstate, and I know I can get to work with my internal combustion truck in the winter. Last I heard, the little electric cars don't do well in the cold. Has anyone thought about our winters up here? Where is my personal choice in how I choose to heat, cook and use transportation? Where is the money coming to pay for this? Fees? Thank you for giving MORE incentive to move out of NYS. | ||
| George,Hayes | Hayes | I am a believer that we need to do something soon to alleviate our polution problems. I'm sure that solutions are now available and we're not being told about them. While average Americans are being penalized for trying to live a decent life, I'm sure those of you in powerful positions will still be driving around in gas powered vehicles and flying in private jets that spew more polution than a commercial jet. Tax payers will foot the bill. The people guiding Biden through his Presidency, know that solar and wind power is not yet developed enough to be used on a wide residential scale. Instead of using what we have in the United States, our leaders are on their knees begging foreign countries for oil and gas. It doesn't make sense to me when I have to change my life so people like you can live a life of luxury. Why don't you send some of the elitists into our neighborhoods to experience what it's like to exist on our level. I think you're clueless and totally out of touch with average America. Come and see how we get by, I dare you. | |
| Carol,Prescott | Thank you for taking aggressive steps to protect our residents and environment. Change is not easy and sometimes it can be expensive, but we need to take bold steps to correct the years of pollution that has happened in the past. Please continue to support the increased use of renewable energy sources and further research. I was alerted to this comment link by my State Assemblyman, Jeff Gallahan. He clearly does not represent my family's views as well as many of my neighbors & friends. We need action now, not years from now. | ||
| DENNIS,WOLFE | NONE | B-------!!!! | |
| Robert,Hwalek | Going fully electric and having to adjust to this extremely unfair plan is social injustice to hard working or fixed income people. This is the prefect example of big government forcing me to pay for something that I do not want. There are many other ways to tap our resources like nuclear energy that is renewable, safe, and not harmful to the environment that would lessen the burden on the tax payer. The potentially $35,000+ cost is too much hurt on me and my family. I will move out of New York if such an unfair plan is approved. Many others will follow who can not afford the states incredibly high taxes and plans that force people to do things that will cost them lots of money. | ||
| Julia,Lane | I am a librarian in a public library in Suffolk County (Brentwood Public Library). I support the efforts of New York State to implement the 2019 Climate Act. I stand with the Sierra Club in its support of this Act. Please continue with this important mission to clean up the planet. Thank you. | ||
| Kathleen,M Honchen | My husband and I fully support all your initiatives. Good work! | ||
| Larry,Welch | retired | First of all, Stop trying to keep up with California. That State is going to lose. Stop abusing and wasting our tax money. You are attempting to institute a political agenda for the sake of going along to get along. Not to mention you probably have insider stock in electric vehicles and investment in China. People cannot afford electric vehicles. Farms cannot operate on electric alone. You cannot generate enough electricity without fossil fuels of some sort. This is a cockeyed idea that will fail and drive this Country into the dirt. But then again maybe that is the political plan for the sake of deals made with China, power, and greed. The U.S. will not and cannot be the only nation to reduce damage to our climate. Other Nations are not following suit and are getting rich off of the dime of Americans. This is nothing more than a big scam. Why are we still punch holes in the ozone layers with missiles and mission to space? NASA uses alot of fossil fuel and do politician's. Stop the malarky, reduce gas and food prices, get baby formula supplies back on the shelves, increase the use of natural gas and build our Military up, and get our Country big a track. PERIOD ! | |
| Stewart,Sherman | Going total electric is going to be very hard on most of the population of New York and our infrastructure is not up to supporting it | ||
| Anne,Smiley | SaveOurShoresLake Ontario | This Climate Act and the drafting plan fail to be specific about all the possible negative complications and effects of relying solely on wind and solar power that has not been proven. There will be unintended consequences that are not considered if and when these energy sources fail for economic and weather conditions. It looks like a lofty ideal with concepts such as climate justice and serving disadvantaged communities without any details to convince the population that this massive plan will work without any specific details. The most salient objection is the elimination of community opposition to wind turbines based on research. | |
| Toni,Dragotta | I cannot afford your plan! | ||
| Suzanne,Coogan | The following is a letter to the editor (Buffalo News) submitted 6/6/22. To the Editor: Re: “Four more solar energy projects planned for WNY,” June 6 New York’s energy needs are expected to double by 2050, as we increasingly heat our homes and power our vehicles electrically. At the same time, to meet our crucial climate goals, we must be phasing out fossil fuel plants, many of which are reaching the end of their lives. We will need a huge increase in renewable energy, including a 7x increase in solar capacity. New solar projects in WNY should be welcome. They are necessary. It's too late for our planet for us to increase our reliance on fossil fuels, including the false solutions like green hydrogen and renewable natural gas that gas companies are trying to fool us with. We must focus on the deployment of proven renewable energy technologies and expanding battery storage. The Climate Action Committee’s final scoping plan must include a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants and specific plans to retire fossil fuel plants and replace them with renewable energy projects. Barriers to siting renewable plants must be lowered. This is the critical decade to do so. The scoping plan must also provide funding and support for workers and communities affected by these changes. No one should be harmed in this decisive and critical swing to renewables. | ||
| william,furdock | What is the cost? | ||
| Lisa,Schaertl | I strongly support this plan. The benefits far outweigh the cost. The best time was decades ago; the next best time is now. Let's lead the way. | ||
| Matt,Tones | Transitioning to more environmental energy sources is a noble cause. However, you can't do that if both are cost prohibitive. Nor can you MAKE people adopt change if you want it to truly succeed...they have to WANT to adopt the change. Making those that are unable to afford an electric car or all new appliances pay for the change through higher taxes will do nothing but cause strife and division. Secondly we have a MUCH bigger issue and that is infrastructure. We need to take a long hard look at the issues states like California are dealing with right now with an overloaded grid, brown outs, and black outs and learn from their mistakes vs repeating them. Real LEADERS lead and people follow because they believe in them and their cause. The current plan is attempting to PUSH people into submission, and if/when it doesn't work it will because of poor leadership and planning. | ||
| John,Perry | While noble in its goal and prepared by noted people in their field, I feel the plan is totally unrealistic and I would rate it as a "pie in the sky" endeavor. In my lifetime I have seen government "plans" come and go and NONE of them have ever met their goals at the proposed cost or achieved their proposed benefits. Costs have always far exceeded projections and many of the so-called benefits have proven to be elusive at best and in many cases have not materialized at all. I am not some kind of radical but, after nearly 80 years of life experience with all sorts of ambitious projects, I do not trust government to undertake something as ambitious as this plan and to make it "work" as promised. I predict that, if adopted, this plan will be riddled with corruption, law-suits, delays and broken promises. It is simply too complicated, too difficult to comprehend and too drastic in the extreme to succeed. The plan will become a political football to be tossed back and forth for years to come with rhetoric, distrust and political division doing nearly as much harm as it might do "good". I am, by the way, a retired scientist, I do believe in climate warming and I do believe that we must do "something". I also believe that this plan is just plain unrealistic. | ||
| Tracey,Winters | Tri-County Excavating, Inc. | I own a very small construction company. We are struggling to survive right now in this inflationary economy. We will not be able to afford to re-tool our machines and trucks when you take away our diesel powered vehicles and machines. Please speak to the working class before you make these mandates. Eventually your decisions will affect you, it will just take longer. | |
| Kenneth ,Sauer | There's Global warming on 5 planets in our solar system and increased infrared radiation output of our sun. Fossil fuels are not responsible for the global warming. | ||
| Benjamin,Leiby | This plan is horrific. The goal for these measures is never articulated to show how it benefits New Yorkers. Nor does it honestly broach the subject on how it will be detrimental to the daily life of New Yorkers. The plans spouts a bunch of buzzwords for taking way energy from the people of New York for some so idealistic agenda that does not work. Taking away proven energy sources for this idea of renewable energy that has proven to be less efficient and less economically feasible is a failure in the making. Reject this plan. There is nothing in it worth saving. It is built upon dishonesty and does not have the best interest in mind for the people of New York. | ||
| steven,morton | morton autom | I read info Senator Oberacker sent regarding this climate act is unreasonable and crippling , it will create undo hardships especially for small businesses already struggling with financial hardships over the past 2 years. Govenor Hochul has stated 94% of all employees hired in NYS are employed ny small businesses. This is hardly a way for her to show support. I am 100% against this plan | |
| Sandra,Fish | This plan is totally too expensive and restrictive for most families that aren't affluent! Also it would put a huge drain on the electrical grid! | ||
| Lorraine ,Cummings | This seems way to quick of a timeline to achieve this. We will be going broke as taxpayers. We don’t have to totally move away from fossil fuels! Please do more cost analysis! | ||
| Douglas,Kraft | Honeoye Central School | Before you go implementing this plan a study needs to be done on how it impacts the citizens of NY. You are going to bankrupt a lot of people. You need to know if this is what New Yorkers really want. I think you will be surprised with what you find. I for one think you should let the energy thing evolve. Ways will be found to make fossil fuels even more efficient even as we transition too electric. How do you think we are going to support all this electric need? We cut it close now. More planning and research need to be done. I don't think it has been well thought out. Thank You | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) is currently (June 6, 2022) updating its System and Resource Outlook. The last Outlook Study Status presentation (April 26, 2022) noted that the draft report will be issued in June 2022. One of the supporting documents for this study is the Capacity Expansion Zonal Results Analysis spreadsheet. The projected new generating resources in the preliminary modeling results are different than the capacity additions in the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis. This comment documents the differences between the current preliminary draft NYISO capacity projections and the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis. The point of this comment is that although the total generation capacity is pretty close between the analyses, the Climate Action Council and the NYISO have to reconcile four significant differences in the projections. The NYISO analysis projects dispatchable emissions-free resources capacity on the order twice as much as the three Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios. The NYISO analysis projects land-based wind capacity development about three times larger than the three Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios. The NYISO analysis projects off-shore wind capacity about 50% less than the three Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios. The NYISO analysis projects that solar will provide about one tenth the projected capacity of the three Integration Analysis mitigation scenarios. The presentation notes it should be finalized this summer: “July 2022: Seek Board of Directors review and approval”. When the NYISO report and projections are finalized the differences between the Integration Analysis and this report must be reconciled. At one of this year’s Climate Action Council meetings, I believe the idea of workshops to consider specific issues as suggested. I think this would be an ideal candidate topic for just such a meeting. | |
| Tracey,Winters | Your plans to eliminate fossil fuels will bring many, many unintended consequences. I suggest that you do not mandate these changes. Instead, provide incentives to those who follow your agenda. Most New Yorkers cannot afford your mandates. Besides, how will our grid survive the additional loading? | ||
| Randy,Thayer | O.C.F. | where are you going to get all the for the electricity homes, cars and trucks and farm machinery ! there are already talk of black outs nationwide. you people are totally ignorant of reality !!!!! | |
| Maryanne,Cameron | As a real estate investor this will drive costs through the roof trickeling down to our most vulnerable neighbors. If NYS was serious about zero emission energy they would be looking at bringing nuclear plants back online and building new. Our electrical infrastructure can't handle everyone's A/C on in the summer let alone everyone in an electric vehicle. The reality of agriculture and trucking using electric is a pipe dream. Government is not efficient and makes industries more expensive, between taxes, red tape, unhelpful regulations, it can be a nightmare to be a small business owner in NY. I oppose this legislation. In fact, it would be helpful to enact term limits on our NYS legislature and leadership as well as make them part time again. Professional politicians (mostly progressive/DSA), with no practical experience, are ruining this state. | ||
| Zachary,Sostack | I have a 2 story house built in 1900 that is single pipe steam heat With your proposal to be carbon neutral I'd have to tear out my whole heating system and replace it with something that'd run on electric. Who is paying for this and who is actually going to do the work? As it is I pay enough taxes. Also how do we expect the power grid to handle the increased electricity demand. What if the power gets knocked out from a storm do I just freeze? Also what is your plan for all the existing gas infrastructure just rip it out let it rot in the ground? My last question is just why? I know the answer but you won't be honest to the tax payers. This is all a ploy to payoff your cronie friends just like the bills stadium deal. Average taxpayers foot the Bill so the people who make your campaign donations make profit | ||
| Naomi ,Smith | To Whom It may concern: The entire world has just come through Covid. Now the government seeks to further restrict the people. The plan endorsed would effect my neighborhood radically. The farmer down the road deserves to make his livelihood and to the great benefit of the community. The neighbors deserve to burn wood as it is readily available and serves their heating needs best. My family deserves to benefit from available fossil fuels without the imposition of further taxing out the ability to choose. Americans deserve the right to choose and free choice is being undermined. Furthermore, this is not how my friends, family and neighbors chose to have their hard earned tax dollars spent. This type of spending to research and promote this type of endeavor is an economic and intellectual affront to the American people presupposing they haven't the wherewithal to make an informed decision so it will be made for them. Sincerely, Mrs. Naomi Smith | ||
| Patricia,Linton | |||
| Alora,Cisneroz | Circularity, Reuse, and Zero Waste De velopment (CR0WD) | 1) Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, increasing to 80% by 2030. ? Require a per ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, while also expanding policies and programs to encourage individual and large-scale reuse of building materials. ? Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot programs. ? Develop public informational resources working in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (state agencies, local governments, contractors, property owners). ? Support local governments to adopt requirements that all sites slated for full removal must be deconstructed rather than demolished by 2026. 2) Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. ? Adopt codes for new construction that enable the incorporation of reused materials. ? Support workforce training of green jobs, with deconstruction as an important component. ? Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. ? Enact a production tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into intermediate products to locate facilities in New York. ? Provide financial support to municipalities/counties for the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges. 3) Develop plans to divert concrete and asphalt, CCD’s two largest components, from waste streams. ? Require local governments, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to use a paving base of 100 percent recycled asphalt asphalt and concrete, and to encourage on-site street recycling that includes recycled aggregate. ? Establish an environmentally sound plan for waste resulting from the demolition of New York’s interstate highways. ? Support research, facilities, and programs that focus on the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt shingles, gypsum (drywall) and masonry | |
| Marisa,Maney | Please do not speak for families who cannot afford to live with your idealistic, ridiculous plans for electric usage. Stop trying to break us. | ||
| Paul,Reid | The Reid Companies | ||
| Doug,Thornton | If you morons in Albany haven't already noticed how you are running people out of this state as it is do you really think if you take away natural gas, which in case you missed it powers most of the electrical plants you think we should be using instead, you are all really idiots! When there is no longer anyone with the ability to move leaves, no one but welfare/nontax payers left, who do you think will pay you? Oh sure you will move too! You people are insane and should be impeached so real people can make the decisions for NY again. Looks like our home down in the real world may just become our full time home. | ||
| Elizabeth,Kocienda | New York City Bar Association Transpo rtation Committee | On behalf of the Transportation Committee of the New York City Bar Association, attached please find comments on the Draft Sco ping Plan (DSP) of the New York State Climate Action Council (NYSCAC). The DSP does not address a major source of problematic air emissions – freight transportation. The Committee respectfully urge the NYSCAC to include both the diversion of freight, particularly across the Hudson River, from road to rail and from road to marine transport, as well as the conversion of essential trucking to low emission, or no emission, equipment, among its areas of focus. Please see the attached letter for more information. For any questions, or to discuss further, please contact: ROBERT M. BRILL CHAIR --------- DANIEL B. FEINTUCK SECRETARY ----------- Thank you for your consideration. | has attachment |
| Amy,Chaput | 1. I did not see a viable solution to address homes currently heated with oil. Nor a way to fund conversion of single family homes dependent on oil heat to alternative renewable heat sources. 2. Many old homes are not wired to be able to handle upgraded electricity requirements. Additional electricity added to internal house wires that were not designed for it is a fire hazard. 3. Many older homes use wood for supplemental heat. Why is wood not considered a renewable fuel? 4. The state should not be able to overrule local jurisdiction and zoning to force private land conversion to renewable power generation,. | ||
| Jane,Golub | I write to support NYS in leading the country in requiring NYPA to reduce fossil fuel use by 2030 thru innovation and all possible methods. Thank you. | ||
| Mark,Gruendike | I do not want my grand children to be sitting in the cold and dark which will happen if the infrastructure is not completed first. Nuclear power is needed to maintain a consistent source of power. A recycling plan needs to be developed for solar panels and wind mill blades. | ||
| Keilka,Salsbury | Please accept the attached letter as my Comment. | has attachment | |
| Langdon,Jenkins | Are you trying to bankrupt the citizens of NY? We can't just give people cuts or credits to pass the INCREDIBLE costs on to the next generation. Who thought this plan up? The people who own the businesses that will benefit? You can't just cram change down people's throats... you have to show us that this will work - and right now the states that are trying this do not have enough power when they need it - so what good is it? There is NO WAY we can create enough electricity to power every car, bus, factory that is in this plan - not to mention houses... without some additional power source that produces GHG. This plan is utopian, short-sighted, and ignorant of what the people in NY want. Show us that it will work - don't force us to be the guinea pigs. We will be a case study in stupidity. | ||
| Laquita,Williams-Johnson | As a concerned constituent and voter who lives in Western New York, I am truly alarmed by the extreme measures of the Draft Scoping Plan. I strongly believe this plan imposes costly changes on NY residents, especially Western New Yorkers who have to endure colder and harsher winters. Yet this plan does not answer how these costly lifestyle changes are going to be affordable to average consumers like me, because these changes are not affordable. Besides the concern of very high electricity bills, is there no concern for the obvious overload to the electric systems that this will inevitably cause? An overload that is sure to cause many blackouts and dire circumstances for many of us- especially in the winter months. Yes, I am concerned with climate change but I also believe climate goals should and could be achieved with a more balanced approach. | ||
| Michael,Allen | I am not for the electrification of our homes and transportation. The Expense to my Family will be to great that I will have to consider relocating to another state. Electric vehicles are very costly and won't fill my family's needs since We own 3 vehicles and like to travel. We would not be able to afford to replace our vehicles with these type of vehicles. As for eliminating the use of gas to heat a home in winters in New York, it is not a feasible Idea to use heat pumps. They are not for use in colder climates. In Western New York our winters can get quite cold. Then there is the cost to convert, this is not possible and is an unnecessary burden for my family. Then there is the electrical grid, it will not be able to handle this proposed increase in electricity use. Our infrastructure is not capable of handling this. Wind and Solar will not be enough to keep up with out Nuclear or Hydro and there should be backups like gas powered plants as well. Not to mention the cost of Electricity will put a large burden on family finances. I don't think anyone is thinking this through, rural areas are not problem areas for pollution and need the use of fossil fuels for their everyday lives, complete electrification is not possible or smart. | ||
| Laurie,Stricks | I am writing to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion. This Scenario pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. Sincerely, | ||
| Marcha,Johnson | TIPTOES AROUND THE MAIN ISSUE. The sincere people wrote this draft plan managed to avoid the heart of the matter: human population and urban development have grown too much, at the expense of Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, living systems. Despite an impressive collection of thoughtful ideas, there’s no call to stop and reverse this endless growth. Without curtailing growth, the rest of the actions in this report are not likely to sufficiently reduce our carbon footprint to reverse the global warming. MYTH OF SMART GROWTH We’re kidding ourselves to describe continued urban development both within cities and corridors between them as “smart growth.” That term is a market-driven euphemism for non-sustainable, expansion behaviors driving global warming, involving vast volumes of concrete and energy. SWITCH TO ELECTRICITY NY State isn’t in a vacuum- you can’t claim to be helping the climate by transitioning from fossil fuels to hydroelectricity at the expense of Canadian forests (the Champlain Hudson Power Express project just approved by the Governor). Instead of contracting with an socially unjust, environmentally destructive industry, what is needed is to lower the demand for energy. STEADY STATE ECONOMY Instead of an economic model based on endless growth, what is needed is an economy based on reversing growth, reusing existing buildings instead of constructing new ones and reducing human population to a size that is smaller, healthier, more satisfied and culturally rich while restoring and nurturing the planet. Thank you for undertaking this tough discussion and inviting comments. Best of luck moving forward toward effective actions. Respectfully submitted, Marcha Johnson, PhD, ASLA | ||
| gary,bajdas | the ban on natural gas and to electrify everything is nuts. I live in a row of town houses that were built in 1975 and switched to gas because the electric bill was outrageous .Besides the grid would have to almost quadruple to handle the increase. NY is not even close to being ready for this. leave the natural gas alone . there's no reason there can't be a balanced approach to this. | ||
| Roger,Katchuk | Broker/Owner First Tioga Realty | I am a small business owner and real estate investor for over 30 years. Previously I was an expat for 14 years on job assignments in more than 30 countries. I have seen how various cultures operate. It is glaring that your advisory panel is mostly full of bureaucrats and people with strong ties to the electrical utility industry. Your plan is skewed in one narrow minded direction. Your commission plan will destroy my business and the economy of New York. You have gone ahead with this plan while knowing there is not a reliable and comprehensive replacement for gas at this time. I have gone through the expense of replacing all gas-powered furnaces I own with high efficiency units. New windows, roofs, insulation etc, have also been completed. The cost to reconvert again is beyond my finances. I am in the same situation as many other small business landlords. I have stopped any new investment and most likely will sell out. My town has multiple power outages every year. The New York States and national electric grid experience regular power outages and there is no protection against solar emp or foreign emp attack. Where was the discussion on your plan to create for buildings even higher gas fueled heating systems, building insulations etc. Then supplement with electric until an efficient electrical utility system is created. How about planting trees in every acre of available land in the state with government support? Any home sale will now have to look at the added cost of your plan to the now rising mortage costs for a home. | |
| Laurie,Duchovny | I am a New Yorker who is deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on my life and the lives of future generations. I support the CLCPA wholeheartedly. To meet the goals of the CLCPA, we must implement an immediate ban on new fossil fuels in buildings and the electric sector. It doesn’t make sense to keep building new fossil fuel power plants, expanding pipelines, and digging ourselves further into this hole. | ||
| Monica,Freeman | I am a New Yorker who is deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on my life and the lives of future generations. I support the CLCPA wholeheartedly. To meet the goals of the CLCPA, we must implement an immediate ban on new fossil fuels in buildings and the electric sector. It doesn’t make sense to keep building new fossil fuel power plants, expanding pipelines, and digging ourselves further into this hole. | ||
| Justin,Shu | I am a New Yorker who is deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on my life and the lives of future generations. I support the CLCPA wholeheartedly. To meet the goals of the CLCPA, we must implement an immediate ban on new fossil fuels in buildings and the electric sector. It doesn’t make sense to keep building new fossil fuel power plants, expanding pipelines, and digging ourselves further into this hole. I also think that EV charging stations are key to convince potential car purchasers to choose electric vs gas. It's difficult especially in the cities access to EV charging stations or at least there is a perceived challenge to having an EV car. I think a commitment and visibility into the plan will help push us to net zero. | ||
| Corinna,Loeckenhoff | I strongly support the scope of this plan. If anything, I would support even more ambitious goals towards a zero emissions future. I also support the CJWG in calling for "Utility customer bill of rights” that would include a safety net style guarantee of renewable energy to every household. | ||
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | My name is Frank Blaskowitz. I live at 166 W. Bayard Street, Seneca Falls, NY. I am writing to urge New York’s Climate Action Council to consider the following when finalizing the CLCPA Scoping Plan. My wife and I moved to Seneca Falls, NY in April of 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. We moved from Beaver, PA, a small town on the Ohio River in western PA, about 30 miles north of Pittsburgh. When we moved to Beaver seven years ago in 2015, we planned to retire there. Then came Shell Oil. Shell was given tax breaks from Pennsylvania and air permits, etc. from the PA Department of Environmental Protection to build a massive cracker plant. Whatever happened to “Environmental Protection”? The cracker plant takes byproducts from fracking and produces ethylene pellets used for making plastics, while emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air. Since we always enjoyed our visits to the beautiful, pristine Finger Lakes region, we decided to sell our home in Beaver, PA and purchase a home in Seneca Falls, NY. Our plan is to explore the many beautiful areas of the Finger Lakes for the remainder of our retirement years. It is very important to us, that in view of the Climate Crises facing our planet, that we live in an area of the country where government officials are doing whatever they can to Protect Our Environment and Our Common Home. Take a look at New York’s DEC Mission Statement: DEC Mission Statement: "To conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being." The Scoping Plan must include a permanent ban on cryptocurrency mining that uses fossil fuels for powering the hungry computer mining machines. Thank You, Frank Blaskowitz | |
| Robin,Moshier | Village of Richfield Springs | I am opposed to the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan as it is written today. Specifically, I object to the ban on natural gas for new construction later in this decade. While I do agree with the need to decarbonize our culture, I feel we have been encouraged to convert to natural gas for years and now, after investment and planning, we are told to change course – almost immediately. Our community recently compiled and adopted a Comprehensive Plan. We were encouraged by consultants as well as the State to promote natural gas access as a significant asset for attracting commercial investment to our community. “Shovel ready” we thought. Banning natural gas for new construction in the next decade is not only expensive and contradictory at this point, but also irresponsible. Notably, utility companies continue to advertise incentives for converting to natural gas equipment. The message is inconsistent. Finally, is our current electric grid able to handle the proposed electrification of the State? This proposal seems to imply the electric grid will be magically fortified and expanded concurrently with expected innovations in end-user equipment. This does not seem realistic. While I do understand and support the need for action, I do not support the creation of poorly-planned policies and laws. Please do not allow the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan to be adopted as New York State policy as it is currently written. | |
| Barbara,Freeman | Please Select | Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I am 80 years old and spent nearly all of those years caring about and teaching about the environment. Little did we know that the very fuels we kept warm with were in the process of destroying the future of our children and grandchildren. Many people still do not know that fossil fuels are destroying our PUBLIC HEALTH,, which will be increasingly difficult in grueling heat, drought, wildfire, and shortage of food - all of which have already started. I'm commenting to ask you to be sure and put funding in for the CYCLA, a law to begin to protect New Yorkers' environment and climate! 2nd, I'm asking that you educate yourselves and NY residents of the false promise of false solutions to the climate crisis like biofuels, “renewable” natural gas, biomass, waste incineration, and so-called “green” hydrogen. New York’s Final Scoping Plan must focus on renewable zero-emission technologies that have been proven to work, like solar and wind technologies, and geothermal as well as incentivize the development of any other non fossil fuel based solutions. | |
| Barbara,Pfingst | All local planning and zoning boards across NY should follow a similar outline of how to develop local environmental resources. For example, I live in Clarkstown, NY (in Rockland County) and our planning, zoning, and local government are in favor of turning Clarkstown into an industrial area over the objections of the residents. One project along Route 303, is a 220,000 sq ft distribution warehouse, flanked by homes, schools, nursing homes, and local businesses, bringing 250 additional trucks per day, to start. We are being marketed as close to highways, but it's not the right fit for Clarkstown. We have little recourse once an area is zoned commercial, therefore we need stronger laws to standardize across NY what can/can't be developed and the speed in which development occurs because currently our laws are too dependent on local politics. If this does not become a higher priority, by the time this Plan takes effect, there will be nothing left to protect due to overdevelopment at individual local levels. | ||
| Andrew,McPherson | Please see the attached document for my comments. | has attachment | |
| mark,kurtis | You are trying to controll and make the market ...which always fails economically. Let people decide how to power their lives. Be an American and swallow your elitist pride. | ||
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Please see the attached file. - Thank you! | has attachment |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | I strongly support urban forestry programs that help municipalities increase their urban tree cover, especially in areas that are heat deserts, which tend to be historically disadvantaged communities. | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Dear Climate Action Council, I’m Laura Faulk and I live in Saratoga Springs. I’m gravely concerned about the increasing disruption to our life sustaining climate system, which is why I am taking the time to give input to the Climate Action Council on its critical work to develop a Scoping Plan for the CLCPA.. It is imperative that the final version of the scoping plan focus on prioritizing afforestation and forest preservation efforts that provide maximum climate benefit over strategies designed to profit the forestry industry. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan. New York must prohibit logging for carbon sequestration purposes without proven life cycle analysis that shows that the use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. The use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be limited or forbidden, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. I also strongly support urban forestry programs that help municipalities increase their urban tree cover, especially in areas that are heat deserts, which tend to be historically disadvantaged communities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Laura Faulk | |
| John,Gebhards | Forestry: From the Forestry stand point I am a founding director and past Executive Director of the Orange County Land trust and have been involved in many forestry preservation transactions. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan. New York must prohibit logging for carbon sequestration purposes without proven life cycle analysis that shows that the use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. It is imperative that the final version of the scoping plan focus on prioritizing afforestation and forest preservation efforts that provide maximum climate benefit over strategies designed to profit the forestry industry. The use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be limited or forbidden, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. I support Senario 3. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on theForestry Section of the Draft Scoping Plan. John Gebhards | ||
| Judy,Harris | My name is Judy Harris and I am concerned about climate change. In 2021, Bitcoin was used in 0.012% (about 100 million) of the total global noncash transactions (about 840 billion), yet its energy consumption (estimated at about 104–198 TWh) rivaled that of the entire global banking system (about 140 TWh), which handled the remaining 99.988% of the transactions. It is important to note that a vast majority of these 0.012% Bitcoin transactions were simply trades, and did not represent useful payments for goods or services. To make matters worse, Bitcoin periodically undergoes “halving” events in order to maintain artificial scarcity, with the next halving expected in 2024. Each halving event doubles the amount of energy required to mine one Bitcoin. These staggering statistics highlight a few issues, in addition to the well-known ones associated with electricity use and the related GHG emissions. First, with this kind of energy requirement and the associated costs, it is nearly impossible for Bitcoin (or any proof-of-work cryptocurrency) to serve as an inexpensive, democratized, and decentralized universal currency as its proponents misleadingly claim; its very design prevents it from scaling. There are tremendous costs associated with Bitcoin’s mining and block-chain operations that are eventually borne by everyone holding Bitcoins. This makes Bitcoin a particularly poor investment vehicle. Anyone who owns Bitcoins essentially has an “asset” that has continual costs, but produces nothing of value. The only way for this investment to grow is by means of a price appreciation caused solely by the demand exceeding the supply. It will inevitably run out of new buyers, thereby halting the uptrend in prices while the operating costs continue to mount. Thank you for your efforts and please continue. | ||
| John,Gebhards | I am Vice President of JRS Farms and a retired Chemical Engineer. I have been involved with our 2,000 acre family farm for 50 years. I feel strongly that the Climate Action Council should consider splitting this section in two and dedicating separate discussions for Agriculture and Forestry to allow for a deeper analysis and set of recommendations. Managing our agricultural emissions and adopting sustainable agricultural practices are critical parts of a credible plan to achieve net-zero GHG emissions for the State. NY farmers provide valuable ecological services and play an essential role in local food systems and the economy. Meeting CLCPA goals requires investment to make climate-friendly knowledge, technologies, and funding more widely available. The Agriculture and Forestry Section of the Draft Scoping Plan provides excellent recommendations for preserving forest lands and transforming the way we farm in New York. However, it also has ill-suited recommendations that work against the mandates of the CLCPA and recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG), including building the market for bioenergy and biofuels. New York should cease public investments in technologies that enable the accelerating concentration of livestock farms. We must place fees on nitrogen fertilizers to fund farms transitioning to organic systems that reduce upstream methane emissions. Methane emissions from pastured cows generate less than 2% of the amount of methane that anaerobic liquid manure produces, and “dry,” aerobically managed manure only generates about 7% as much methane as anaerobic liquid manure. The scoping plan should include regulatory options, as authorized under the ECL and consistent with the CLCPA, for reducing methane emissions. Food produced from local sources is nourishment, and a central aspect to food and public health is the availability of fresh, nutrient-dense food. With New York City on our front door step the plan needs to directly addre | ||
| Judy,Harris | My name is Judy Harris. I have been concerned about climate change for decades. It is past time to deal with this. Thousands of people are being hurt already by climate change. It is time to reverse the damage we’ve caused. The scoping plan emphasizes low-carbon procurement, workforce development, and incentive-based measures, and posits that near-term emissions reductions will come from energy efficiency and limited electrification, while longer-term reductions will depend on innovation including low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The final scoping plan must clarify that this chapter’s objective is to promote climate and environmental justice, not business development. There must be support and leverage of public procurement to promote low-carbon materials; demand-side changes may be made to reduce materials waste. Industrial heat should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited, especially where hydrogen combustion would overburden disadvantaged communities. We need data collection and reporting requirements to accurately show how industrial facilities impact these communities. The sector of this chapter must omit any reliance on carbon capture and sequestration, (CCS) which is not a true zero-emissions measure. Last but not the least, the final plan should call for a permanent moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining—an enormously energy-intensive industry that threatens our climate goals. Even if such mining operations use renewable energy, they undermine our climate goals because this renewable energy could be used to displace carbon-intensive energy for other productive sectors of our economy. Thank you for your efforts. | ||
| Maura,McNulty | The Climate Reality Project | My name is Maura McNulty. I am a lifelong resident of NYS. I’m a mother, and I’ve been a teacher for 35 years. I am dedicated to ensuring that future generations are able to thrive in our beautiful state. I am writing to ask that the final scoping plan call for a permanent moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining—an enormously energy-intensive industry that threatens our climate goals. Even if such mining operations use renewable energy, they undermine our climate goals because this renewable energy could be used to displace carbon-intensive energy for other productive sectors of our economy. First, with this kind of energy requirement and the associated costs, it is nearly impossible for Bitcoin (or any proof-of-work cryptocurrency) to serve as an inexpensive, democratized, and decentralized universal currency as its proponents misleadingly claim; its very design prevents it from scaling. There are tremendous costs associated with Bitcoin’s mining and block-chain operations that are eventually borne by everyone holding Bitcoins. This makes Bitcoin a particularly poor investment vehicle. Secondly, the 2024 halving will not only double the energy costs of Bitcoin mining, it will also likely exacerbate the already egregious E-waste problem associated with such mining operations. The reason is that it will slow down the rate at which new Bitcoins can be mined, therefore it will necessitate upgrades to faster hardware. If the price of Bitcoin does not appreciate sufficiently to cover its escalating costs, mounting losses may force some mining operations to close down. Thank you for all your hard work on our behalf. I know in my bones that our continued survival depends on how well we confront the climate emergency, and I trust that you are equally committed. Sincerely, Maura McNulty | |
| Paul,Fisk | Retired; member The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | In 2021, Bitcoin was used in 0.012% (about 100 million) of the total global noncash transactions (about 840 billion), yet its energy consumption (estimated at about 104–198 TWh) rivaled that of the entire global banking system (about 140 TWh), which handled the remaining 99.988% of the transactions. It is important to note that a vast majority of these 0.012% Bitcoin transactions were simply trades, and did not represent useful payments for goods or services. To make matters worse, Bitcoin periodically undergoes “halving” events in order to maintain artificial scarcity, with the next halving expected in 2024. Each halving event doubles the amount of energy required to mine one Bitcoin. These staggering statistics highlight a few issues, in addition to the well-known ones associated with electricity use and the related GHG emissions. This kind of energy requirement and the associated costs, it is nearly impossible for Bitcoin (or any proof-of-work cryptocurrency) to serve as an inexpensive, democratized, and decentralized universal currency as its proponents misleadingly claim; its very design prevents it from scaling. There are tremendous costs associated with Bitcoin’s mining and block-chain operations that are eventually borne by everyone holding Bitcoins. This makes Bitcoin a particularly poor investment vehicle. Anyone who owns Bitcoins essentially has an “asset” that has continual costs, but produces nothing of value. The only way for this investment to grow is by means of a price appreciation caused solely by the demand exceeding the supply. It will inevitably run out of new buyers, thereby halting the uptrend in prices while the operating costs continue to mount. The Scoping Plan should include a permanent ban on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining using fossil fuels to provide electricity to run thousands of computer miners. Thank You... | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Since many farm families are nearing retirement and some are having difficulty in finding younger people interested in taking over farms, a program to match younger people with older farmers would be most helpful. | |
| Jonathan,Brady | Climate Reality Project | My name is Jonathan Brady, and I live in the village of Elka Park, in the town of Hunter, in Greene County NY. I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter. I am also the father of two young children, and in that capacity, especially, I would like to thank the Climate Action Council for their work to date. I believe that nothing is more important for my children's future than finding ways to address the climate crisis. Specifically with respect to industry, industrial heat should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited, especially where hydrogen combustion would overburden disadvantaged communities. We need data collection and reporting requirements to accurately show how industrial facilities impact these communities. Last but not the least, the final plan should call for a permanent moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining—an enormously energy-intensive industry that threatens our climate goals. Even if such mining operations use renewable energy, they undermine our climate goals because this renewable energy could be used to displace carbon-intensive energy for other productive sectors of our economy. In 2021, Bitcoin was used in 0.012% (about 100 million) of the total global non-cash transactions (about 840 billion), yet its energy consumption rivaled that of the entire global banking system, which handled the remaining 99.988% of the transactions. It is important to note that a vast majority of these 0.012% Bitcoin transactions were simply trades, and did not represent useful payments for goods or services. Cryptocurrency adds virtually no value to the real economy, and draws vastly disproportionate resources that are needed elsewhere as part of our decarbonization efforts. Thank you again for the important work you are doing. | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | Please see the attached file. - Thank you! | has attachment |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | I strongly support programs that provide resources to small farmers to help them understand and adopt agrovoltaics. Farmers would benefit from the added revenue stream of solar energy generation and studies have shown that properly designed agrovoltaic systems can also enhance crop production. A 2022 capstone project at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs identified a lack of time for small farmers to learn, consider, and adopt agrovoltaic practices as a significant barrier to adoption. | |
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | The scoping plan emphasizes low-carbon procurement, workforce development, and incentive-based measures, and posits that near-term emissions reductions will come from energy efficiency and limited electrification, while longer-term reductions will depend on innovation including low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The final scoping plan must clarify that this chapter’s objective is to promote climate and environmental justice, not business development. There must be support and leverage of public procurement to promote low-carbon materials; demand-side changes may be made to reduce materials waste. Industrial heat should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited, especially where hydrogen combustion would overburden disadvantaged communities. We need data collection and reporting requirements to accurately show how industrial facilities impact these communities. The sector of this chapter must omit any reliance on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) which is not a true zero-emissions. Last but not the least, the final plan should call for a permanent moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining—an enormously energy-intensive industry that threatens our climate goals. Even if such mining operations use renewable energy, they undermine our climate goals because this renewable energy could be used to displace carbon-intensive energy for other productive sectors of our economy. I support Scenario Number Three of the Scoping Plan. | |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft scoping plan. I strongly support programs that provide resources to small farmers to help them understand and adopt agrovoltaics. Farmers would benefit from the added revenue stream of solar energy generation and studies have shown that properly designed agrovoltaic systems can also enhance crop production. A 2022 capstone project at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs identified a lack of time for small farmers to learn, consider, and adopt agrovoltaic practices as a significant barrier to adoption. | |
| Judy,Harris | This study at Skidmore College recently came to my attention and should be taken into account. It would be hard to find a group more in need of our help and more important to our survival than small farmers. I strongly support programs that provide resources to small farmers to help them understand and adopt agrovoltaics. Farmers would benefit from the added revenue stream of solar energy generation and studies have shown that properly designed agrovoltaic systems can also enhance crop production. A 2022 capstone project at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs identified a lack of time for small farmers to learn, consider, and adopt agrovoltaic practices as a significant barrier to adoption. | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please refer to the uploaded comments below. | has attachment |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the draft scoping plan. I support Scenario Three. Please ensure that the following recommendations on the Industry Sector are included in the final draft: The scoping plan emphasizes low-carbon procurement, workforce development, and incentive-based measures, and posits that near-term emissions reductions will come from energy efficiency and limited electrification, while longer-term reductions will depend on innovation, including low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Carbon capture and storage is not a climate solution, as was stated by over 500 organizations across the United States in Canada: "investing in carbon capture delays the needed transition away from fossil fuels and other combustible energy sources. It poses significant new environmental, health, and safety risks, particularly to Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities already overburdened by industrial pollution, dispossession, and the impacts of climate change." The sector of this chapter must omit any reliance on CCS. Furthermore, the final plan should call for a moratorium on "proof of work" cryptocurrency mining—an enormously energy-intensive industry that threatens our climate goals—until a full environmental impact statement can be completed. Finally, industrial heat should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited, especially where hydrogen combustion would overburden disadvantaged communities. We need data collection and reporting requirements to accurately show how industrial facilities impact these communities. REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH This section lacks vital information on the public health impacts of industry on disadvantaged communities. While the sector mentions that combusting hydrogen can produce harmful levels of nitrous oxide emissions (NOx), it does not address the other pollutants it produces. Current technologies that attempt to control emissions are far from ready. Fu | |
| Paul,Fisk | Retired; member of The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Maura,McNulty | The Climate Reality Project | My name is Maura McNulty. I am a lifelong resident of NYS. I’m a mother, and I’ve been a teacher for 35 years. I am dedicated to ensuring that future generations are able to thrive in our beautiful state. The draft scoping plan emphasizes low-carbon procurement, workforce development, and incentive-based measures, and posits that near-term emissions reductions will come from energy efficiency and limited electrification, while longer-term reductions will depend on innovation including low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS). The final plan must clarify that this chapter’s objective is to promote climate and environmental justice, not business development in and of itself. Conducting business as usual is what got us into this climate mess in the first place, and we need to ensure that people’s well-being is not sacrificed for the sake of industry profits. We must leverage public procurement to promote low-carbon materials, and we should be promoting demand-side changes to reduce materials waste. Industrial heat should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited, especially where hydrogen combustion would overburden disadvantaged communities. We need data collection, reporting requirements, and public education to accurately show how industrial facilities impact these communities. The sector of this chapter must omit any reliance on carbon capture and sequestration, (CCS) which is not a true zero-emissions measure. Thank you for all your hard work on our behalf. I know in my bones that our continued survival depends on how well we confront the climate emergency, and I trust that you are equally committed. Sincerely, Maura McNulty | |
| Judy,Harris | |||
| Jonathan,Brady | Climate Reality Project | My name is Jonathan Brady, and I live in the village of Elka Park, in the town of Hunter, in Greene County NY. I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter. I am also the father of two young children, and in that capacity, especially, I would like to thank the Climate Action Council for their work to date. I believe that nothing is more important for my children's future than finding ways to address the climate crisis. Agriculture and Forestry are of particular interest to me since I live in a rural environment surrounded by forests. I believe it is imperative that the final version of the scoping plan focus on prioritizing afforestation and forest preservation efforts that provide maximum climate benefit over strategies designed to profit the forestry industry. The use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be limited or forbidden, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. The Climate Action Council should consider splitting Agriculture and Forestry into two sections, dedicating separate discussions for Agriculture and Forestry to allow for a deeper analysis and set of recommendations. New York should cease public investments in technologies that enable the accelerating concentration of livestock farms. We must place fees on nitrogen fertilizers to fund farms transitioning to organic systems that reduce upstream methane emissions. The scoping plan should include regulatory options, as authorized under the ECL and consistent with the CLCPA, for reducing methane emissions. Sustainable practices must be supported and incentivized, including reduced tillage, crop rotation, cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management to minimize fertilizers and pesticides. Thank you again for your time and the valuable work you are doing. | |
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | Sustainable practices must be supported and incentivized, including reduced tillage, crop rotation, cover crops, and smart crop surveillance and management to minimize fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming and agroecological principles such as rotational grazing and agroforestry must be incentivized. New York State must fund transformative practices that work upstream of manure storage, and direct Climate Resilient Farming funds towards reducing enteric and manure sources of emissions. Resilient Farming funds should be made available to smaller operations. Resources, such as peer-to-peer farmer education, about the technological and economic aspects of such a transition are needed. State policies and programs must be reformed to promote institutional procurement strategies that provide access to local markets for farmers employing soil health and GHG management practices. Payment for ecosystem services programs can incentivize farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices. Thank You for your efforts in addressing New York's Climate Issues and Protecting Our Environment. | |
| Jackie ,DeMarco | Capital Region Climate Reality Project | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please refer to the uploaded file below. | has attachment |
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | It is extremely important that the final version of the scoping plan focus on prioritizing afforestation and forest preservation efforts that provide maximum climate benefit over strategies designed to profit the forestry industry. Encourage communities to work with the Arbor Foundation to become a Tree City USA. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan. New York must prohibit logging for carbon sequestration purposes without proven life cycle analysis that shows that the use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. The use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be limited or forbidden, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. Thank You... | |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | Agriculture in New York State must go from being a source of greenhouse gas emissions to becoming a carbon sink. In order to do so, New York must promote proven practices that will enable agriculture to sequester carbon. These practices include • Incentivizing agroecology, agroforestry, and regenerative organic agriculture; preserving forests and farmland. • Discouraging Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and biofuels, as well as carbon offsets and all carbon markets, as they are prone to "gaming the system", fraud and abuse. • We must protect and restore our soil resources—and our rural economies and communities—by providing a base income to land managers who regenerate soil. • We must create more farms, gardens, forests, urban greenery, and state parks for the good of public health. • Our state must invest in programs to enable underserved communities, including BIPOC, women, LGBTQIA+, low-income, veteran, and beginning farmers, and undocumented farmworkers employed on farms in NYS, to access land and farming resources. • By supporting a greater diversity of farms and farmers, we’ll have more carbon in our soil and healthier, fresher food on our tables. | |
| Frank,Blaskowitz | Climate Reality Project | The Climate Action Council should consider splitting this section in two and dedicating separate discussions for Agriculture and Forestry to allow for a deeper analysis and set of recommendations. Managing our agricultural emissions and adopting sustainable agricultural practices are critical parts of a credible plan to achieve net-zero GHG emissions for the State. NY farmers provide valuable ecological services and play an essential role in local food systems and the economy. Meeting CLCPA goals requires investment to make climate-friendly knowledge, technologies, and funding more widely available. The Agriculture and Forestry Section of the Draft Scoping Plan provides excellent recommendations for preserving forest lands and transforming the way we farm in New York. However, it also has ill-suited recommendations that work against the mandates of the CLCPA and recommendations of the Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG), including building the market for bioenergy and biofuels. Thank You... | |
| Mark,Meyer | The measure that this "Act" is imposing is absolutely absurd and has NOTHING to do with climate or climate change. This Act truly is government allowing or working in conjunction with large companies to monopolize the utility market for economic gain of those parties & share holders. Working under the disguise of "climate" people are being mislead & misinformed about what is really happening. This measure on the industrial & commercial industries only forces business out of our state and country into other parts of the world where there is little or no regulation on emission therefore serving absolutely no purpose toward climatic change globally at ALL! Furthermore, the economic burden this will put on the people of New York and the country as a whole will be astronomical, forcing more hardship on businesses and residents eventually causing an even larger exodus of New York and ultimately the United States. I presume that this really is the motive behind the "plan". Very sad, this is not progress. New Yorkers can't afford this, The United States can't afford this! Thirty plus TRILLION dollars of DEBT! That is what needs to be cleaned up before ANYTHING else. | ||
| Colin,Maxwell | Hello, I was born in Manhattan. I went to NYU. I have lived in 3 out of 5 boroughs. I'm an FDNY Firefighter. I'm a home owner. I'm a father of a 2 year-old and 4 year-old. I am VERY concerned about the future of our planet's climate. This plan does not do enough. We need to electrify our buildings and move them off fossil fuels as soon as possible. We need to prioritize mass transit and 2 wheel modes in all cases. We need to get food waste programs like composting or anaerobic digesters active in all parts of the state. And we need to move all new eletricy generation to renewable sources NOW. We can't have vague language or untested technologies in this plan. Hoping that green hydrogen will happen in the next five years gets us nowhere. We have the ability to build wind, solar and hydroelectric power today and TODAY is when we need to start building them at enormous scale. I don't want to tell my kids that I did what I could but our politicians wouldn't listen. I want to tell them that reason, forward-thinking, and a consensus on the value of humanity's shared future prevailed. All of this planet's population will be changed along with the climate, let's try to make it a change for the better. | ||
| Glenn,Lyden | Lyden Enterprises LLC | Are you trying to bankrupt everyone in this state or have them freeze to death? At $6.00 for oil how many people, especially on a fixed income can afford to heat their houses? You wonder why everyone is fleeing this state. Even if you can afford to heat by oil, what happens when the power goes out? Frozen pipes because of stupidity? When the elite screw the populace it is just wrong. | |
| Noah,Kazis | Please see attached. | has attachment | |
| Keith,Heptig | By focusing on limiting and/or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions you are dooming the future of this once great state. As if the mass exodus already underway, as in people leaving this oppressive state for others isn't bad enough, a focus on de-carbonizing will make it that much worse. I vote for an "all of the above strategy" which will include solar and wind. I also would strenuously urge you to tap every available energy resource at our disposal. Oil, Gas, Coal, NG & nuclear should all be explored and harvested immediately at any means necessary. Natural Gas and Nuclear are two of the cleanest forms of energy that can be produced, that should be the future of this state. The rise in energy prices associated with these green schemes will drive out the remaining New Yorkers who stayed to watch the final nail to be put in the coffin of New York State. It is a travesty what these nonsense ideas have caused and will continue to cause. | ||
| Robert,Confer | Please see attached. Thank you for accepting comments. | has attachment | |
| Sandra,Goldmark | Barnard College | Please find comments from Barnard College attached. | has attachment |
| Philip,Bender | Hello, I am commenting as a lay person, a very concerned New Yorker and parent. Since I have been aware of climate change, I have been worried about it. I frankly don't understand why other people aren't more so. This is the stuff of disaster movies. We need an inhabitable world! Now I have a child and another one on the way, and I want them to be able to grow up into the same stable environment I did, or as close to it as possible. (Clearly exactly the same is no longer in the cards) I was thrilled when New York passed the CLCPA, which I strongly advocated for as a citizen & community activist. But it won't mean anything if we don't move forward with a serious plan that is enforceable and has teeth. That means we need to fund this plan! A carbon pollution fee would be a great way to do that. But most importantly, we need to go with the strongest plan that puts us in the best possible position. Biofuels, natural gas, & waste incineration (to name a few) are false solutions that won't really build us the sustainable economy & energy system we need. Scenario Three from this plan is the way to go: full-scale electrification across all sectors & a full transition away from fossil fuels. And it needs to be legally enforceable! The health & welfare of future generations demand it! I will go on record saying this right now: I know I will probably have to pay higher taxes in the short term to make this plan a reality. I'm cool with that! I consider it paying for my kids' future. Let's make it happen, New York. | ||
| Katie,Applegate | The Plan includes 9.5-11 GW of land-based large-scale wind requiring up to 1.1 million acres of leased land which, given New York geography and population density, is beyond New York State citizens’ willingness to accept. The more that these large-scale projects are built the harder it will be to site more of them as the “easy” locations are taken and the projects move closer to wilderness areas, wildlife management areas, parks, Native American lands and populated areas. It is not reasonable to expect that towns must carve out 1.1 million acres to be industrialized for electricity generation. This is the equivalent of 1700 square miles. It is unrealistic to rely upon this scale of wind power given the extensive land requirements and widespread opposition. The Scoping Plan is ignoring the land limitations and the impacts to rural communities that exist in its recommendation to site so many large-scale land intensive renewable projects in New York. The state plans to “educate” the public and provide economic incentives in hopes of gaining more support. These actions will not change the basic geographic limitations and the negative impacts to intangibles such as open space, quiet nights, and close community relationships that drive the opposition to large-scale renewables. It is foolhardy to base an energy plan on intermittent renewable energy sources that may displace a significant number of rural residents. | ||
| Kamala,Keeley | Three Rivers Development Corporation | The Southern Tier has serious concerns about the proposed timeline and cost for updating and modernizing infrastructure to accommodate the increased demands on the existing grid. NYSEG has estimated that they will need to invest more than $2 billion into the Hornell system alone for transmission purposes to help meet these goals. That estimate doesn’t include necessary investments into distribution systems to get the power to homes and businesses who will no longer be able to rely on gas. It is estimated that full heat electrification will cost New York consumers more than $70 billion. The cost to individuals will be great and although we understand the many long-term benefits, there needs to be a way to move forward without creating additional economic hardship for many families and individuals already impacted by the repercussions of COVID-19. Expensive carbon taxes, penalties on traditional heating equipment, prohibitions on replacing existing household infrastructure with newer, cleaner, and more efficient models, and extreme conditions placed on an already unreliable electric grid will impact working, middle-class, and lower-income households to an unfair degree. Ensuring energy equity is an important goal and an outcome deserved by individuals, families, and communities across the state. The Southern Tier recognizes the great challenge posed by climate change and, ultimately, we support an aggressive push towards cleaner energy standards to help mitigate the impact of climate change. The current proposed plan is not working in our best interests and creates too much disruption, unnecessary cost, and unrealistic deadlines. We urge the council to create a timeline and standards which better reflect realistic possibilities for our community and a better chance for overall success towards our shared goal. | |
| Daria,Gregg | self | I applaud the efforts of NYS to address the pressing disaster of Climate Change, which effects initially the people least able to do something about it. However, if ignored it will and does effect us all. Local government can only do so much without State assistance and money to prepare for the floods that will be coming. We cannot live without electricity, if we want a modern society, but this electricity needs to come from renewable resources. The Fossil Fuel industry has lied to us for decades, and in my opinion cannot be trusted, but unfortunately we need to work with them to transition too. They have been so so slow to really make any changes, but if pressed will do that. For them it all boils down to the profit line. Example: if it is unfordable to not recover gas leaks because of the large fines, they will solve that problem. Keeping our forest wild and healthy; transitioning to agriculture that keeps the carbon in the soil; reducing our waste stream by transitioning to a system of reuse or reduce rather than recycle are examples of the other parts of our world that need to change. But they will not without the incentives and/or fines that State government can enact. Finally, we are part of an ecosystem that is out of balance. The actions proposed will help all of us. | |
| Laureen ,Zayac | CLIMATE ACTION PROPOSAL CONCERNS: Climate change has resulted in more frequent and more impactful storms and damaging winds. Recent power outages have lasted for days. Natural gas and fossil fuels have allowed some to remain in their homes. If all appliances and heating systems are changed to electricity, many more people may have to seek other shelter during those events. The thought of mass evacuation (should a disaster ever arise) using only electric vehicles is preposterous. Grid lock of uncharged electric vehicles with an emergency or imminent safety problem approaching would not allow for proper public safety. Our existing electrical grid is often burdened during extreme heat conditions. How can it handle the additional load of all home appliances (when they are replaced with electric) as well as charging all electric vehicles. Personally, to stay ahead of the switch to cleaner energy, I changed from a gas hot water heater to an electric hot water heater. MY ELECTRIC BILL HAS TRIPLED! Since then, I decided to install a timer (another additional cost) on it to reduce cost ...which only decreased the bill by about 20%. The “all the eggs in one basket” mentality of changing all appliances, homes and vehicles especially on such a radical and short-time period doesn’t allow the homeowner or anyone the comfort of a “backup” system.” What if this doesn’t go as planned? Where do all the gas, oil, diesel vehicles and pumps go? The empty underground gas storage tanks? What happens to them? Loss of jobs for all fossil fuel employees? Plan for discarded/used electric car batteries and solar panels. What happens to them. Can they be reutilized or repurposed or recycled | ||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Natural Gas is required, no curtailment needed. | |
| brian,sczerba | Abused taxpayer | Stop all your wasteful climate nonsense. This is just a wealth transfer scheme so you can rip off the taxpayers. | |
| Erich,Winkler | |||
| Hannah,Thorson | |||
| Remy,Kothe | none | I would like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. New Yorkers are already facing the impacts of climate change. The faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create, and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | I prepared this comment because I found that the Integration Analysis is simply making assumptions about future zero-emissions transportation implementation strategies without providing adequate referenced documentation. There are numerous recommendations for additional documentation in these comments so that New Yorkers can understand what will be expected and how much it will cost. The Integration Analysis projections for electric vehicle costs start in 2020. The observed data is not consistent with the projections. The final Scoping Plan should address those discrepancies. In addition, it may also be necessary to revise the Integration Analysis. As far as I can tell, the electric vehicle costs are based entirely on new vehicle sales. There is no acknowledgement that the used car market will likely change because of the cost of battery replacement. Sellers will likely get less relative to new cars in the battery electric vehicle market. Buyers may get a relative deal but will lose in the end when the batteries have to be replaced. A common theme in the Draft Scoping Plan is that any doubts that the public has about any aspect of the net-zero transition can be simply addressed by convincing them with appropriate information. This is also evident in the zero-emissions vehicle presentation. The problem is that the draft Scoping Plan only tells one-side of the story instead of presenting all the issues and making a case for their preferred approach. Simply put, that is propaganda and it has no place in the Scoping Plan. There is no bigger disconnect between the ZEV proposed strategy and reality than the ZEV charging infrastructure requirements. The biggest problem is that millions of cars will have to rely on chargers that cannot be dedicated for the owner’s personal use because the owners park on the street or in parking lot. In order to provide a credible ZEV strategy, the final Scoping Plan has to describe a plan how this could possibly work. It is | |
| Mark,Sclafani | Utility Consultation Group (UCG) | This is a written version of the UCG statement made at the various public hearings. | has attachment |
| Mark,Benjamin | To whom it may concern: Re: waste The plan should encourage and promote landfill gas to energy more robustly in the desire to electrify everything. Re: Electricity The plan should encourage and promote the elimination of the electricity company monopoly on the electricity delivery systems in place in the desire to electrify everything for the purpose of providing a more fair market place. Re: Land use A mechanism needs to be created in the plan in order to fairly compensate taxpayers and/or municipalities faced with the burden of the plan’s desire to create additional green space and buffer zones, which will have the unintended consequence of increasing property and school tax burdens amongst already overburdened taxpayers. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | At a recent Climate Action Council meeting one of the council members noted that very few comments were presented at the public hearings questioning the necessity of greenhouse gas emission reduction action inherent in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I believe that was primarily because presenters were only given two minutes so they had to pick their battles. These comments have been prepared for the record based on my long experience in air pollution meteorology, my education and direct experience with many aspects of New York climate. I believe that until specific climate catastrophes can be shown to be the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions using observational data, that there is no existential climate threat that can be alleviated by reducing New York emissions. In these comments I refute many of the claims made in Section 2.1 of the Draft Scoping Plan. If documentation is not included that explicitly supports the claims made and contradicts in these comments and the attachment, then I think those claims should be removed from the final Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Rona,Fried | I'm Very Impressed by the Draft Scoping Plan. It includes everything I would want to see and outlines a thoughtful, comprehensive implementation plan. Great Job!! I wonder, though, how this incredibly long list of action items can ever be implemented and whether in the end, it's a wish list. Partly, it's overwhelming, because it's so late in the game. So much of this should have been implemented decades ago. This is what I'd like to see: get the low hanging fruit NOW. Renewable Energy: strong emphasis on incentivizing distributed solar: rooftop, community, parking lots, superfund sites, microgrids, Agrivoltaics, rather than huge solar and wind farms. Regulations/incentives aligned so that businesses with large roofs QUICKLY add solar. Plan ahead, create Renewable Energy Zones. As I drive around, I still RARELY see solar on any roof, much less big box stores. It’s NUTS. Big Hydro should not be considered Renewable Energy. It destroys forests and emits huge amounts of methane. Strong Emphasis on restoring wetlands, forests and all ecosystems. Resiliency: No sea walls! Strong Emphasis on sustainable agriculture: no need for nitrate fertilizers, cows are fed grass, not GMO corn (way less methane), Forest protection: remove barriers to regeneration (eg: competing plants, invasive species, deer). Bring Wolves Back! Protect every inch of forest from development. Recycling Economy: long overdue! Make NY home to recycling businesses. Every household should compost at home - it's ridiculously easy! Foster Green business in NY State that supply the materials for a green economy Tree planting projects must use NATIVE species in every town and forest. The mix of species should be decided by ecologists, not planning departments. Most towns don't know what a native species is. Towns, Counties and their parks are flooded with invasive plants - they need education and support. | ||
| OTTAVIO,LO PICCOLO | According to The Guardian there are 5 threats to our survival on Earth: Changes in land and sea use, Direct exploitation of natural resources, The climate crisis, Pollution and Invasive species. However, in my humble opinion, CO2 emissions is, in my opinion, the first one in nuclear weapons, the 2nd is pollution; plastic/trash pollution, oil pollution and other chemicals, as herbicides/pesticides. I admire and support your efforts in reducing emissions, but I also hope that the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan will consider and/or include ways/solutions to reduce the threat of waste/pollution that is caused by plastic, oil and chemicals. I think that one way to reduce plastic pollution is to impose taxes and refundable fees on all plastic, glass and metal containers. Refundable fees shouldn't be only on some bottles/cans, they should also be imposed on many other containers; for instance ice tea, Gatorade, juice bottles, food jars/jugs. In addition recycling should be mandated for all; families, business and government. The fuel/plastic industry should be imposed taxes on their plastic products that are contaminating/devastating our planet and killing millions of marine animals. California and Massachusetts are two such examples. Why not imitate and/or build on their plans? Technology is making recycling easier; as a matter-of-fact, advanced recycling has already been approved by 18 states. State of the art technology, as advanced recycling, maybe part of the solution. However, we must involve all players- all those who produce these harmful products and us, the consumers (families, business and government institutions). In addition, the media and education must play an essential part in educating the public (about these ecological threats and solutions). | ||
| Thomas,Good | Please care about the COST of the current plan, epecially as the economy enters a recession. | ||
| Lynn,Chatfield | The state I feel has overstep the line. Who does the state thinks is going to pay for all this. ie. school buses. Our school will have to build a garage with heat to park the buses in at night. I will have to pay for that. To change my home over anywhere from 5,000 dollars and up. I will have to pay. New York is saying just the opposite as other states are saying, like heating with wood. If the state keeps taxing me at this rate, they will force me to move out of the state. Working people making $30,000.00 a year can not pay for all of the states MANDATES. All mandates are paid for my the tax payers of New York. | ||
| Tim,Cortes | Plug Power Inc. | Please see attached comment letter. | has attachment |
| Tim,Cortes | Plug Power Inc. | Please see attached comment letter. | has attachment |
| Robert,DeForest | Cordelle Development Corporation | According to the EPA’s website on Global Greenhouse gas emissions the USA accounts for 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions. China & India account for 47%. What effect in real numbers will the CAC plan have on climate change? I cannot find the answer in the plan. The answer is most likely none. Natural gas is the bridge between oil & coal power generation and renewables. It should be embraced not banned. The most common type of fuel used to heat a home in NYS is natural gas. It's used in about 60% of American homes nationwide. (energy.gov). The US has seen carbon Emissions from electricity decline by 27% between 2007 & 2018 resulting from switching from coal to natural gas for power generation. On page 136 the CAC plan proposes refuge spaces similar to a YETI style cooler within a multifamily building or community center to protect residents in the likely event of a power grid failure during a prolonged cold snap or multiday heat wave. That sounds more like 1985 communist East Germany than a modern-day United States. This plan is not realistic, nor market based and seeks to force a societal behavioral change. They are correct that there is low public awareness about New York’s Climate Act. The more the public becomes aware the more resistance there will be. The technologies may exist but not at a value that make it competitive, desirable or realistic in the marketplace as it exists today or the near future. Finally, the CAC plan is a false hope. If NYS does not support natural gas as a bridge to green energy or nuclear power as an alternative, in the quest to avert climate change the CAC plan will create an energy and economic disaster for NYS. | |
| Timothy,Russell | -I will not support a race-based wealth redistribution program. Identifying disadvantaged communities ought to occur irrespective of race. If a community is facing adverse environmental impacts currently, or would be expected face adverse impacts as the result of implementing some part of the CLCPA, then a determination of who is disadvantaged ought to be made on that basis. -I reject a state-issue notion of who constitutes a "frontline community" and who doesn't. I am sure there is a political academic who has defined this for you. -I do not have faith in the ability of the state to create a net benefit in the physical environment and supply of energy through private regulating businesses. "Ensure that strategies include regulatory or mandatory actions and rely less on voluntary programs." This is communism. -I will commend you on preparing a document packed with brief, soft-sounding terms like "equity," "frontline communities," and "climate justice" each which it's own newfangled leftwing definition, and thus creating a semantic mazework to baffle any normal folk who might comment. -I do not expect that you will yield to resistance from people like me, so I will put it plainly: I am a full-time conservationist professionally, a tree-hugging weenie, and we are not allies. Climate change is real, and now we will face it without unity and I blame you. I will not join hands with you on any of it. Once a "liberal," I will now be voting straight-ticket red to oust people like you from government. Go ahead, ram through as much of this as you can while you can. -One very reasonable request is just that those individual bureaucrats who are paid to administer the CAC should be publicly identified so that everyone knows who they are. It should be the case that no one forgets who was involved with this. -NY is advertising contracts to "Disadvantaged Community, as identified by the Climate Justice Working Group (CJWG) draft criteria" now; how is that "draft?" | ||
| Patricia ,Caldwell | Community Board 9 & Associate Minis ter a CABC | Clean energy and energy efficiency programs are needed to assure a future of a clean climate. Here we live in a metropolis people live in dwellings of high-rise buildings. I am no expert on the topic, I do know that when I travel by airplane, upon entering the NYC region the cloud of carbon emissions is evident. The emissions are evident and how it affects the health and well-being of the New Yorkers can be detected when I take a deep breath in a rural region in the U.S., outside of NYC. After coughing a while I realize the heightened level of pollution I live in as a native New Yorker. To this issue I offer a most apparent layman’s solution. Let’s clear the air. To eliminate fossil fuel emissions by converting to electricity. All vehicles allowed within the city limits must be able to run on solely electric power while within the city limits. Our goal should be to transition from fossil fuel by the year 2030. I am confident there are those with the expertise to engineer a solution. In a densely populated area like New York City. I am confident our food and bio-gradable emissions are substantial. The ability to use these emissions in a controlled environment to create a source of power which can be converted into electricity. Our focus should be on projects and/or investments in the areas of housing, workforce development. We live in an economy where people need jobs and training. All can benefit from this endeavor offering paid training into this new workforce of clean energy and energy efficiency programs via local government and Federal Funding. A separate agency needed to oversee the transition into clean air. This can be developed and funded through the Home Energy Assistance Program. With federal and local government assistance, energy, transportation, and economic development in New York State’s transition to a cleaner energy with lessened to eliminated carbon emissions must be achieved in the near future. | |
| Mark,Baker | Soft Lights Foundation | Dear Climate Action Council, There are multiple mentions of the use of "energy efficient LED lighting". The definition of energy efficiency is providing the same quality of service using less energy. LEDs emit light from a flat surface, creating a directed beam of non-uniform energy that triggers epileptic seizures, migraines, anxiety, and numerous other negative neurological reactions. LEDs are not energy efficient, just a low-quality light. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for approving and regulating electronic products and the electromagnetic radiation emitted by those products, including visible light. (CFR Title 21, Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 1040). The FDA has so far not approved any LED devices and has set no restrictions on spatial non-uniformity, peak luminance, peak radiance, spectral power distribution, or square wave flicker. Claiming that LEDs are energy efficient is false and recommending installation of LED lighting without waiting for FDA approval of LED devices is not legally justifiable. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | In what appears to be a egregious attempt to reduce the published costs of wind, solar, and battery storage the Integration Analysis assumes that the expected lifetimes of those technologies is indefinite. As a result, units are assumed to remain online throughout the study period and no costs for replacements between now and 2050 are included. However. that is a poor assumption because it is totally unreasonable to expect that, for example, the existing land-based resources will still be in operation in 2050. Using an indefinite retirement date for wind, solar and battery storage resources underestimate the total builds needed for 2050. For land-based wind between 3,814 MW and 4,600 MW are not included and for offshore wind between 6,200 and 6,600 MW are not included. The amount of solar not included ranges between 22,639 MW and 19,983 MW. Finally, for battery storage between 10,713 MW and 12,207 MW of additional resources will be need to be developed to meet the 2050 projected value. Another way to look at the exclusion of these resources is that land-based wind development costs could be up to 45% higher than the projections that don’t include reasonable retirement dates simply because that much more needs to be developed. Off-shore wind costs could be up to 38% higher, solar costs could be up to 35% higher, and battery storage could be up to 64% higher than projections that exclude reasonable retirement dates. I conclude that there are questions that the Climate Action Council needs to address. Why shouldn’t reasonable retirement dates be included in the Final Scoping Plan. What would the revised costs be if retirements were included? | |
| Z,C | I would like to see more emphasis on trash collection and animal waste enforcement. In downtown Brooklyn, the trash on the streets is an issue that seems to be accepted. I would hope the department of sanitation would work to make an impact in an equitable way. Additionally, I believe that there needs to be an effort to enforce rules that are in place to make people clean up their animals waste on the street. | ||
| William,Irwin | Your proposal has an aggressive plan to eliminate energy uses other than electric. It is specific as to what government will allow citizens to use for energy. It is not specific on how government will ensure the electrical infrastructure will be enhanced and made to have increased redundancy. The plan does not appear to offer other energy sources as an alternative to electric. Citizens now have the freedom to choose their energy sources. Your plan to eliminate our freedom to choose seems unamerican. A single source of energy regulated by the government seems more communist than democratic. However, if you insist on pushing forward with this plan, you must not significantly curtail citizen's ability to choose which source of energy we use without a rock-solid infrastructure in place to handle the demand ahead of implementing restrictions on other energy sources. You must also offer alternative energy sources (ex. hydrogen). Since this action will do little if anything to the worldwide climate, given the steady population increase and nonparticipation by some of the largest countries in the world, not to mention the damage done to the environment to get the materials to build the batteries for all the projected electric vehicles and devices, it seems unreasonable to put this kind of burden on New York Citizens. | ||
| Brian,Speer | Speer-it Enterprise | Please read attached file | has attachment |
| Andrew,Beck | Water Haus | This will destroy New York for what gain exactly? Does in not make more sense to have a Electrical grid that can handle all these idiotic mandates for electric energy first, do you really think the solar panels are going to charge cars and run A/C at night LOL I know these policies have nothing to do with the climate HOAX you've been selling us for the past 50 years. If it were true and in 10 years the sea levels would rise 10 feet NO BANK on planet earth would fund any project in pretty much ALL of Florida and 1/4 mile from the shore line anywhere! | |
| Andy,Clark | My previous home was all electric, from this same failed experiment in the 70's. It was the most inefficient and costly home I have owned. Natural gas is clean energy. It doesn't have to be mined like the contents of electric car batteries. It's the most efficient way to heat a home, cook, and heat water in a cold climate. If you want to do something to help the environment right now, get all of the diesel heavy trucks off the road and replace them with natural gas-powered trucks. Our power grid is maxed out and cannot handle the load of every house charging electric cars all night. Windmills and solar produce a tiny fraction of what is needed, and you want my house to be all electric so nuclear and fossil fuels can produce the electricity? You tout the jobs this will create...maybe in China, we don't manufacture anything here anymore. Your foolish ideas may work for NY City but not for Upstate. New Yorkers deserve better leadership than this. | ||
| Jed ,Dukett | |||
| Chris,Schlaegel | We don't need to decarbonize our economy - we still have plants to do that. This leadership committee just says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Our current emissions aren't a problem - the current regulations are more than enough. People just need to be responsible for themselves, although everyone knows how human nature works. The overarching purpose and objectives are just that - overarching. These plans take away any choice for fuel and energy, and government shouldn't have that power. Achieving climate justice is woke poppy cock. Enough said. With all the public health issues that are real, it's hard to believe that this plan even mentions public health issues. You need to figure out how to get people to stop living in their own squalor first. My analysis of the plan is that it's just a money grab for the rich and a way to appease the climate activists. Nice way to get the snowflakes' votes. If you really think I need to go on and on, you can email me. At this point, I've had enough, but I could have checked off more boxes if it makes a difference. My vote is NO for this draft. | ||
| Reyna ,Cohen | ALIGN, NY Renews | ||
| Echo,Cartwright | The Nature Conservancy NY Division | Attached are the comments from the NY Division of The Nature Conservancy on the Draft Scoping Plan. If you have any questions please contact Echo Cartwright [email protected] Thank you. | has attachment |
| Michelle,Bilodeau-Lanne | Hello, Thank you for your hard work on this important issue. The latest IPCCreports show that our window for preserving a livable planet is almost closed. We have only a sliver of light left and no time to waste. The federal government has failed to act and with Republicans set to take Congress in 2022, we will have no further federal action. The only hope now is the states and local government. New York must lead and has to take bold action. While we are blessed with our Adirondack Park, it is threatened and we need to expand protections of natural areas to tower areas of the state. We need to immediately electrify the entire grid and provide charging stations for motorists. We need to end all new natural gas hookups (gas is not a clean technology and the methane it inevitably leaks is fueling rapid heating). We need to adjust laws to allow for more rapid introduction of windmills and off shore wave technology. This needs to be done with environmental protections in place, of course, but needs to be done quickly. This plan is getting extreme pushback, especially from sellers of natural gas and builders. Please do not let their false and greedy arguments impact the scope of the plans. Short term greed and the profits of the few have gotten us into this situation. We need to understand that preserving life is a public good. Without drastic changes now, we have no hope for the future. This situation does not have to be all gloom and doom. Transitioning off fossil files will create many new, high paying jobs. An electrified grid will be cleaner and produce less air chiming smog and pollutants. Houses free of gas appliances will lead to less asthma and better health. More natural spaces will improve life for everyone. Please do the right thing. Those of us who care about our planet do not have the deep pockets and resources of the fossil fuel industry. Please do not be swayed by their bribes, threats, and greed. | ||
| James,Standish | I support efforts to fight climate change, but fear that NY is on a path which would create huge financial hardship for my family, and serious problems for the state. If the Climate Action Council’s scoping plans are not changed, homeowners would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to convert their home to electric heat pumps, stoves, and water heaters. We would be penalized with carbon taxes or surcharges on other fuels. NY’s electric rates are already among the highest in the country, and we report the most outages of any state in the mid-Atlantic. The rapid, untested changes to the electric grid are likely to send electric rates even higher and compromise the resilience of the electric grid. I don’t believe we have a good enough understanding of the real costs and risks of these plans, and there will be a backlash when their impact is felt. Our path forward should not ban fuels like natural gas, propane gas and biofuel heating oil which can get increasingly renewable. We can reduce carbon output significantly without putting all our eggs in one fragile, expensive electric basket. We are moving too far, too fast, with too much risk and cost. I urge you to support a broader path to a cleaner energy future. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. | ||
| Kanwaldeep,Sekhon | Hello. My name is Kanwaldeep Sekhon and I live in Glen Oaks, NY. While not perfect, I agree with and support climate action and the CLCPA as outlined in the draft scoping plan for not just my local community, but our city as a whole. A just transition from fossil fuels to wholly renewable forms of energy (i.e. Solar, Wind & Hydro) will clean up the water we drink and bathe in as well as the air we breathe. It will also put us on the correct path to divorcing ourselves entirely from fossil fuels in NY and all of the health problems associated with oil, gas & coal usage. | ||
| Gloria,Pilarski | I am opposed to the total transition to all electric vehicles, appliances, home heating etc. Our country has had far more environmental regulations than other countries, yet we are depending on other countries for our products, oil, medicines, solar panels, computer chips etc. because they have less regulations and therefore along with cheap labor and their continued use of fossil fuels can produce these much needed items. How does that help the world environment? We cannot depend on electricity for everything. That would put our country in a very vulnerable position world wide. Wind doesn't always blow. Waste of wind mill blades is a serious problem. They create the need for more land fills. The solar panels do not work well in N.Y. due to our winters, cloudiness, snow covered panels covering our prime farm land and making the land useless for growing our vegetables, fruits, grains etc. much needed to feed our country and also help other countries. This doesn't make sense. Power outages could cause deaths to people dependent on oxygen, in nursing homes or their own homes. Winters with no electricity, no way to heat homes alternatively, no way to cool homes, unaffordable cars, etc. What is being proposed makes no sense and is stupid. | ||
| Peter,Campanella | Usa | The climate of earth is always changing you can not stop it. One only has to look at the geography of our country to see this is Grand Canyon, Letchworth state park. We can change the way we do things , but this is only a grab at money and in g to he end will do more damage with the manufacturing of useless materials and expenditure of large amounts of energy to achieve nothing . Conservation Stratton with conserving not spending | |
| howard,newman | I am a senior citizen. My home is heated with oil. It would be an unfair financial burden to require me to change my heating system to electricity be it a heat pump system or any other system that runs on electricity. Moreover is my prior home I had a heat pump system which worked fine when the temperature outside was above 40 degrees and below 75 degrees. In the winter when the outside temp dropped below 40 degrees, the heat pump was useless and it cost me a fortune in electricity to use backup heating coils. It’s perhaps one thing to address new construction but to force someone like me who is retired and on social security to invest in a new heating system is an absurd unfair financial burden to place on senior citizens. Farther where is all the electricity that is going to be required for this and EVs going to come from. Renewables are not going to support the size of the power grid that will be required with the only solution burning gas and coal to create the electricity. I vehemently object to this unfair misguided burden that will be placed on me and other senior citizens. The cost of this folly will be prohibitive not only from the capitol cost of switching systems but also the monthly cost of the electric bill. | ||
| Joe,Conley | Transportation/Buildings. For both of these initiatives we do not have the electric infrastructure to support the huge increase in electric demand that will result. The electrical service to heat/cool buildings and charge automobiles cannot be supported now and I don't think 7 years is enough to get the delivery system to the level needed to make the recommended changes. 70% renewable energy by 2030 is a big undertaking and will surely cost more than projected. Attempts to make this transition quickly will lead to excessive costs and it is ripe for corruption. | ||
| Stewart,Pravda | I support of the development and use of 'Green Hydrogen'. As the efficiency of the process increases, like the efficiency of solar panels did increase over time, Green Hydrogen yields a long term solution to electrical generation and vehicle fueling pollution. Storing Green Hydrogen will act as a battery for base load and peak load situations. It frees us from relying on foreign sources for minerals for batteries and the resulting increase in mining and transport. Long term this is a much better solution to our energy needs than what we have today in terms of oil/natural gas with the resulting problems in politics, future wars over resources, mining and transport problems, supply chain issues etc. I don't support using Green Hydrogen for a replacement of home heating / cooking applications that now use natural gas. Electrification of those applications is a much better solution. The group NY Renews wrongly linked Green Hydrogen with NOx emissions without stating that it only occurs if you pursue a path of blending it with natural gas and then burning it for power or home use. I don't support either option. Green hydrogen can also produce jobs in NYS if we take the lead in research and development and nurture new companies in this field. | ||
| Mikaela,Ruiz-Ramon | |||
| Kent,Sopris | New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS) | ||
| Allen,Hunter | resident in and citizen of New York Sta te | In the current draft of the Scoping Plan I cannot find any references to women. They are not mentioned in discussion of a just transition, even though it would make sense to include women in apprentice programs, for instance. They are not mentioned in discussions of public health. Just one example: women will have a greater burden in dealing with the health consequences of GHG generated pollution since they have greater responsibility for children and the elderly than men do at present. In discussions of community involvement in decision-making, there is no mention of ensuring that women are adequately represented in this crucial work, and women are likely to have insights into benefits and potential harm of strategies for reducing GHG emissions. Many more specific instances could be mentioned, but you get the idea. | |
| Allen,Hunter | resident in and citizen of New York Sta te | Public and public-private authorities and the CLCPA. There is little if any discussion in the Scoping document about how the state government will collaborate with the public authorities in the state. Are the emissions created by the area airports and seaports counted as part of the State's emissions? These authorities have some autonomy from laws, rules, regulations that apply to the state as a whole. Does that mean that rules or laws created to implement the CLCPA do not apply to these authorities? If they do not apply, then what plans does NYState have to work with the authorities to find ways to collaborate on cutting GHG emissions and working toward a just transition? For instance, if bridges and tunnels are under the control of this authority, but the roads leading to and going from them are controlled by the state, does that mean that dealing with these have to be done separately? What are the cost, temporal, and efficiency implications? | |
| Jerome,Pawlak | |||
| Billy,Lambert | Climate change is coming hard and fast and though not perfect I urge that these measures be implemented asap! | ||
| Kathryn ,Guterman | If legal, I'd like to see NYS pick a date where all new passenger cars sold and registered in NYS must be EV, hybrid, or meet a very hight fuel efficiency standard. Particularly in urban areas with good public transport, where cars aren't necessary. The plan needs more baby steps. | ||
| Richard,Enck | Hi NYSERDA, I want to say to all Government officials that have any control over these wind projects going forward, Wake the F---k up! You B------- are forcing residents of Rural NYS to live within industrial wind production facilities against their will, You S--- are blinded by your own ignorance and somehow believe you are saving the world from climate change, You are wrong on so many levels. Future history books will report your ridiculous thought process as fatally flawed but this will be too late for us peasants that have to live among these Tax Credited Stupid -- Machines that ultimately do nothing but cost our country and citizens millions of dollars for nothing gained, WAKE UP ! This is all just --! L-----------!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Isabel,Antunes | I ask that officials please be realistic on reaching goals concerning the environment. I consider myself the person that does everything in my power to leave as little of a “footprint” on our earth as possible but I also consider myself a realistic person. I feel that some of the proposed changes to NY laws in the name of saving our planet are unrealistic and will create hardship for most New Yorkers. I believe that many of the proposed changes have not been studied for long term impact on our environment. Consider that once our government officials went from “paper bags” to “plastic bags” in the name of protecting our environment, for them to only realize years later that plastic bags are worse! I believe that we may be facing similar errors if we implement some of these changes without closely studying the impact of certain components of proposed changes. Let us also consider that our economy is in real trouble, that our tax paying citizens are in trouble and scared of the uncertain times we are living in. Is it really fair to force these costly changes to people that are already hurting in such a short time period. Please consider your constituents and their true troubles and fears. | ||
| Timothy P,Wells | My family “vehemently” opposes all goals proposed in the report! These goals are ludicrous! They are unattainable and undermine logic! If they are implemented you will see a massive exodus of residents and companies out of the State of New York. The electric power grid cannot withstand the demand. Especially during the cold winter weather we get. How will New Yorkers survive during power outages during the winter? My family lived thru the Rochester 1990 ice storm that left over 250,000 customers without power for over two (2) weeks! These extreme zero emissions goals are insane! There will be a tremendous toll to pay if the goals of this report are implemented!! Respectfully submitted, Timothy P. Wells, P.E. ---------- Road Ashville, NY ------------ | ||
| James,Wirth | I'm asking that you reject the ( Climate Act). I believe the timing of the Act would put a huge financial burden the average citizens of our State and Country. We are already experiencing hardships from the progressive move relating to the Green New Deal. Rising gasoline, home heating, shipping, consumer goods, etc. are just a small list of out of control prices that people are faced with. The irresponsible actions taken by the administration in an attempt to force people into what is considered renewable energy is bankrupting us. I'm not against renewable energy, but I'm against the way people are being forced into converting to it. People can't afford paying the rising price for fossil fuels and products, and they certainly can't afford upgrading to electric vehicles and electric heat pumps. So it appears we are trapped by the policies established by our Albany and Washington lawmakers who don't have a clue of what the working class is faced with. When America switched from horse and buggy to the automobile the price of feed didn't get raised so high that people couldn't afford to feed their horses. No, on the contrary people switched because it was a great benefit to switch and they weren't forced or squeezed to do it. | ||
| Robert,Welton | Rensselaer Environmental Coalition | Since there is a current permit review of the Dunn Construction and Demolition Landfill in Rensselaer, NY and tomorrow meeting is the first community meeting hosted by the Dunn hired engineering firm because parts of the City are Environmental Justice area-ranked in the 78% of the DAV listings I thought it would be useful to make some comments from the front lines for the EJ community. The Rensselaer City School serves the children of that community. The community has low income and high unemployment. I would recommend you take a hard look at the procedures and policies that current exist to implement EJ policy in all issues regarding permit review. Granted I have only limited experience with the policies and procedures as they related to this one permit but I have to assume they apply to most situations where EJ is involved. First it is stated that youth and children are recognized as the most vulnerable along with other categories of people, and their is the need to provide support and opportunities to these populations. Here is the thing. All these high sounding words really are just that if your group knows that the State's largest C and D landfill is less than 500 feet form an 1100 student school from p-12 with a BOCES component. The school was opened in 2007 and the landfill permit was approved in 2012. The permit process was significantly flawed and virtually ignored the school's location. The testing of air quality has to look at small particulate (PM2.5). The Clean Green Schools concept could have a jump start by denying the permit for this operation. Immediate relief to the school population and the surrounding community would be the result. You don't have to wait.Since I know the approach to selecting communities for immediate help is wider than Rensselaer. I would recommend that you look at the EPA Environmental Justice Indices that are in a 1 mile radius of the Dunn Construction and Demolition Landfill. The statistics are difficult to ignore. | |
| Michael,Fralick | These massive changes are not supported by current technology. There is no affordable way to store wind/solar generated electricity for practical use. This will drive the cost of electricity significantly upward along with potentially disaterous shortages. It is the lower income families that this will have the most profound affect on. Do not pass this. | ||
| Kyle,Bultman | Many advances have been made in clean-burning engines. This plan is unreasonable in that it tries to entirely do away with gasoline and diesel engines. It is unreasonable to have farm equipment, trucks, buses, etc. be only electric. Advances have been made and can continue to be made to create better emissions outcomes with gasoline & diesel engines. Encouraging people through incentives to buy electric vehicles is one thing, but trying to actively take away people's cost-effective and necessary modes of transportation and work is quite another. Stop trying to ban gasoline and diesel-powered engines. Instead of bragging about how you want to have the most aggressive plan in the country or the world, instead consider for a moment all the lives that you are trying to destroy in more rural western NY with your continued attempts to ban the very things we need to live and work. Maybe you have never been outside NYC & Albany, but you should consider what we need to live and function. Rural New Yorkers matter too! | ||
| Beth,Bultman | The war you are waging on natural gas is unreasonable and unnecessary environmentally. Natural gas is plentiful in New York and a very clean-burning fuel. Have you ever cooked on a gas stove? It's necessary in order to produce good food. It's a tool that families use to eat. Have you ever warmed yourself by a gas fireplace? It's not just ambiance. It's a tool used by families as a backup heat source when the power goes out. Have you ever had the power go out? Isn't it not only convenient, but essential, to be able to eat and stay warm during power outages? Through trying to ban natural gas, you are trying to take away families' rights to eat and stay warm. The more we depend on electric only, the more that we are helpless and our very lives are at risk when the power goes out. And the more we load everything onto the power grid, without new power grid infrastructure, the more the power grid will get overloaded and the more the power will go out. How would you like it if we stormed into your home and took away your ability to make food, stay warm, and function in a reasonable & cost-effective manner? That is what you are proposing to do to us, and we don't appreciate it. So, remove the natural gas bans from your plan. | ||
| Rev. Mike,Craft | Progressive Church of America | To Be very brief! The State of New York does not have the authority to bankrupt it's citizens via electric cars! The present Governor has no authority to limit any gas engine cars via the interstate commerce act. The Democratic Governor is in violation of 18usc1955--(many sub sections!) To be brief, a US Federal Court will now start making the law in New York State. The poor and the middle class are being destroyed and killed by high prices. Electric Cars cost 300% more than gas cars and the Auto Corporations are thinking they can make 300% more money! They will be charged under RICO! The production of the 1992 Ford Festiva in both 2 and 4 door will be necessary! The auto got 59 miles to the gallon in it's 5 speed version, period! The Ford 1988 Escort Pony got 49 miles to the gallon, period! There were many more. A new peoples government that is pro American Citizen is necessary, is necessary! The aloof Public worker can no longer be left out of Court! The electric Car can not be let to destroy America! America has enough hydrogen, (same as gas but 100 clean) for 120 years! A new Federal Business Administration will put this awful electric crap down. The replacement batteries on a Tesla is $22,000.00. No working person, including cops, teachers, teamsters, etc., can not afford them. They can not afford the car either! --Grow up all so called climate experts! You morons didn't even know that it is the destruction of the Amazon and the other RAIN Forests that is climate change. The Amazon alone was suppling the WORLS, YES WORLD, with 25% of ALL OXYGEN on the Planet! The Third World is not going to cut back! I will close now with facts, New York State has 16 million people, The World has 13 billion people, and most of them are poor! Use birth control in the Third World, close all American borders, and start cleaning up new building projects only! Open the Nuclear Power Stations. This is all FACTS! Rev. Mike Craft Sr. | |
| Seth ,Casey | I think renewable is good to help us out but I also think we have to stay with fossil fuels for the reliability they provide. A mix of both would be the best path for New York | ||
| Bruce,Baumann | NY should not make the same ill conceived mistakes other states have made regarding climate issues. The fact is that the USA is one of the most ecologically and climate conscious nations in the world when it comes to clean air and water. It does no-one any good to make all decisions based on climate there are many quality of life and economic issues that have to be addressed and balanced against climate advocacy. The NYS plan does not recognize natural gas which is plentiful and clean as a bridge fuel which can be used until sustainable replacements are fully ready. Wind and solar are not the answers today because there's too much waste in building these unreliable solar panels and wind generators. NYS plan also does not allow for nuclear energy sources, which are a great success in France and have enabled the French to avoid energy issues affecting the rest of Europe. | ||
| Ann,Oehler | Please give more thought to the bill proposed to reduce carbon emissions. Although your plans might help with the atmosphere, I don't see that the infrastructure has been developed to successfully implement them. Everyone I discuss this with has the same question: where is all the new, needed, electricity going to come from? A good friend, retired from NYSEG, says, currently, there is no good way to store electricity generated from wind and solar. Thank you for actually reading and considering comments from We The People. | ||
| Patrick,Crast | Patrick Crast Consulting Forester-SAF CF-NYSDEC CCF | As a 30 year veteran SAF CF, I would say with total confidence that unless we regulate ag land conversions, solar projects that remove trees for project construction, and timber harvest that don't follow Carbon guidelines assuring storage and sequestration remain the same or better, than this will never work. Landowners and Ag& Forestry are greedy. They will not conform without either huge payouts or the regulatory branches of gov't enforcing new carbon regulations. Further, you will need to pay for all Afforestation/Reforestation or it won't happen. With that said, to pay for Reforestation to restore a cut over stand utilizing tax payer money to fix old Tom's hammered woodlot is bologna. Regulate old Tom, don't take my tax dollars to fix his greedy short viewed management. | |
| Timothy,Masters | Town of Lewiston | This proposed plan is built on a complete false set of data and is only a tool to further propagate the left agenda of the State. This plan is an unrealistic and financially burdensome plan to the NYS taxpayers. Using inaccurate data from the world stage will only enhance the flight out of the state as these imposed standards are implemented. I completely disagree with the whole green agenda for the most part. To implement things that make since like LED bulbs for example I applaud, but the rising sea levels? explain why everyone is moving to Florida if it will be underwater in 10 years? Tim | |
| Michael,Rizzo | University of Rochester | Thank you for putting together such exhaustive materials. I would like to advise strongly AGAINST implementing the plan. The strongest elements of the plan are the improvements in health due to less coal and gas combustion, however, the climate benefits are overstated (the social cost of carbon estimates are well above the range the consensus expects), the ability to turn the electric grid zero carbon without nuclear or reliable means of dispatchable load-following and peaking power, and the disregard for the other environmental costs of the move to zero carbon NY (e.g. wind and solar are not as clean as the analysis suggests), and the several places where the reports suggest that people drive less, do not cook over gas, electrify (and inconvenience) parts of their lives that are not sensible to electrify, make for a dangerous and hard to turn back from plan. There are of course very sensible ways to reduce emissions in the electric sector, it will be much harder to reduce emissions in the non-electric sector (which is 2/3 of energy use), and when the real costs of this program are felt, they are going to be felt proportionately more on lower income and other disadvantaged communities, and the investors who will be making a lot of money under this program will be disproportionately wealthy and not all from New York State. I strongly advise against this program. Sincerely, Michael Rizzo Professor of Environmental Economics University of Rochester | |
| E. Kevin,Conley | First United Methodist Church of East Greenbush - Eco Team Chair | • I am pleased to see the inclusion of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies for difficult-to-manage products and materials; however, the final Scoping Plan (FSP) needs more prescriptive policy recommendations; i.e., policies for plastic and paper packaging require manufacturers to standardize recycling labels and require a percentage of post-consumer content in products and require manufacturers to follow standards that consider environmental justice impacts in hazardous waste disposal. • I agree we need legislation to amend and expand the existing Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law to separate organics, ban combustion and landfilling organics, and require a surcharge on all waste to provide funds for reduction, reuse, and recycling. The FSP should include regulations on the overproduction of materials, such as a tax on overproduction of food and ending production of non-recyclable materials. • The plan supports landfills, biogas markets and recycling markets as opposed to reducing waste in the first place. The FSP needs guardrails on the “limited and beneficial use” of biogas. It should state explicitly that biogas captured from waste should be limited to on-site use and no new transmission infrastructure should be allowed to support additional biogas. • The FSP should expand local-scale composting and recycling in equitably geographically distributed, well-run sites and facilities. This should include the conversion of some local transfer stations into well-run composting/sorting/processing sites. For greater waste reduction and local scale diversion we need municipal collection of organics from all businesses and residences. • For waste justice and climate justice to be reflected in the final plan, it must set goals for decommissioning NYS incinerators and ending contracts with out of state incinerators. The state should not permit any subsidies, nor permit new pyrolysis, gasification or other incineration. | |
| E. Kevin,Conley | First United Methodist Church of East Greenbush Eco-Team | Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I the Eco-Team Chair from First United Methodist of East Greenbush. • I support the draft plan’s vision of gas infrastructure being strategic decommissioned and consolidated and the ultimate closure of gas utilities. I especially support its elimination of statutory provisions that would prevent the renewable energy transition from happening and new building codes to prohibit the use of gas appliances (space heating, hot water and cooking) in new construction. • The cost of decommissioning the gas system must be spread equitably across rate classes to ensure low to moderate-income households and renters are not left behind in the transition. • Replacing fossil gas systems with electricity from renewable sources is an urgent need if we are to have a stable climate and an environmentally just future. We have known for decades that low-income communities and communities of color (despite income level) are more likely to live close to power plants, the refineries that generate oil and gas, and the petrochemical facilities that produce oil-based chemicals used throughout our economy (Robert Bullard 1999, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality) • Renewable natural gas cannot substitute natural gas on a large, or even medium scale. Consensus is that if we take all the manure and sewage and leaking methane from landfills in the state and captured that RNG it would be 2-3% of our natural gas usage. It’s misleading the decision makers and people of the state. Natural gas systems are very expensive, methane emissions have been extremely underestimated. We need to decommission the gas distribution system without kidding ourselves that false solutions like renewable natural gas and hydrogen are reasonable substitutes. ?Require any write-off of stranded assets to be the utility’s complete responsibility, not to be passed through to electric or gas customers; | |
| Helen,Sacco | Hello, I was shocked, appalled, dismayed, saddened, disgusted, and astonished to read the proposed changes in this plan. I am 100% against every item inside of it. Charging FARMERS who grow FOOD FOR OUR FAMILIES to build or purchased electric vehicles is absolutely ridiculous, stupid, insane, ill-advised, and terrible. Eliminating gas vehicles- again, stupid. These changes will do absolutely nothing to affect "climate change." They will do everything to cause families to leave the state. NY already has a problem with families and businesses leaving because the policies do not make sense, and frankly, they hurt us. Families like, mine (middle-class, working parents, with land we farm) will be immediately affected by these terrible policies. We all know that these policies are stupid. Electricity is made by FOSSIL FUEL. We all know this. We all know that the electric grid cannot handle 100% electric vehicles across the state. Look at California where they have to implement rolling blackouts. Imagine families who are unable to charge their vehicle in an emergency. This is just plain stupid and NYers DO NOT WANT TO LIVE THIS WAY. WE WILL LEAVE THE STATE. | ||
| Donna,Larimore | The reduction of use of natural gas is just not feasible. Stop this nonsense! You will drive more and more businesses away from NY and our cost of living here will be so high, people will be leaving even more than they are now! Don't you see this effect on our state? People are leaving and bringing in people who are social services and not working is not the solution. | ||
| Jay,Westendorf | I disagree with the premise that climate can be controlled by man. Therefore, I vote NO on this project. I believe in Adam Smith's opinions regarding the Invisible Hand. This project is a gargantuan misunderstanding of science and a misappropriation of resources. NO, NO, NO and million times NO! | ||
| richard,Doyle | I think the plan to decarbonize is ill advised. I am a home owner who has a solar thermal system for hot water installed in 2011, i have solar PV for electricity first installed in 2014 with additions and improvements that are continuing to be added. Currently I'm adding a battery backup system. The primary heat in my house is from fuel oil. I also have a wood stove in one part of the house. In 2020 I installed a heat pump for heat in the shoulder months in order to cut down on oil use due to the cost. After reading all this you might think I'm a believer in a climate emergency, but I am not. My views are more in line with the author of the book Apocalypse Never. Based on my experience with the systems you are advocating or pushing for a transition to, we will have a cold future indeed. As in, shivering in the winter. Heat pumps do not provide adequate heat to heat my house Dec. - Feb. and during that time i rely on the fuel oil furnace. As for renewable energy, it is a pipe dream to think it can replace current Natural Gas generation. The problem with renewables is they are not reliable, they are intermittent. In the winter there can be periods of days where my solar PV system does not generate any electricity. The current battery technology needs light years of improvement in order to store the energy you need in the Dec - Feb time frame from when I can generate the excess to store in the May- Sept months. I started my solar PV system build out after Janet Napolitano's farewell speech as DHS secretary when she said the power grid will go down, either from a natural occurence or due to man made actions. I believe she was referring to terrorism. So my goal to be able to unplug for the grid seems correct but for different reasons than when I started. It seems more likely to me that the grid will fail due to idiotic policies like you're advocating. | ||
| Aadi,Bhattacharya | Hotshot Hotwires | I am a junior at Rye Country Day School. Today, I want to write about the draft scoping plan’s Chapter 12 on buildings. Although the state has set admirable goals to combat climate change, there’s been virtually no funding to meet those goals. Given the recent dire IPCC reports on the state of our climate, we are heading into disaster with our inaction. Among the actions that we can take today, decarbonizing new buildings is one of the easiest things we can do. We have the technology, and constructing all-electric buildings is a financially responsible decision. Burning fossil fuels in buildings costs New Yorkers more than $20 billion in healthcare costs annually and takes 2000 lives each year. Additionally, most of the fossil fuels used in New York are produced out of state, while most of New York’s electricity is produced in-state. Constructing all-electric new buildings is not only simple and cost-effective, but it will also play a significant role in combating climate change. Each new building constructed with a gas or oil hookup will likely continue to pollute the environment for several decades, so every new electric building prevents a considerable amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, New York’s electric grid has the extra capacity during winter months to handle the additional load of heating from new all-electric buildings, meaning that it can easily support the transition. Furthermore, heat pumps consume much less energy to operate than oil or gas furnaces, so building electrification reduces emissions and pollution irrespective of the source of electricity. Decarbonizing new buildings is one of the simplest and most effective ways to combat climate change in New York State, and we should pursue an expeditious timeline to stop constructing new buildings with fossil fuel connections. Thank you so much for this opportunity! | |
| Zoya ,Khurana | Hotshot Hotwires | Hello, I am a junior at Somers High School, writing on behalf of Hotshot Hotwires, a youth group for non-partisan, science-based climate advocacy. In recent years we have seen jarring statistics that show the immediate need for climate action. Many states are facing warmer temperatures, droughts, and wildfires, and people are actually dying from the impacts of climate change. While we are in a deep hole, it is not too late to pull ourselves out of it, but the window for doing that is closing fast and we must act without delay. We need aggressive climate action now. The situation for younger generations is worse. Gen-Z need to deal with climate repercussions from events that occurred before they were born. Older generations seem to have a fascination with fossil fuels and refuse to consider other forms of energy. Gen-Z is currently championing the efforts to switch to renewable energy, but that isn’t enough. In New York State, a large number of fossil fuels are used in our buildings, and that needs to change. One of the most effective ways to do this is to pass the All-Electric Building Act. Electrifying our buildings will not only secure cleaner buildings for our generation but for future generations as well. A lot of us have started taking shorter showers and making sure that we turn off the lights when we leave the room, but individual actions will not be able to solve the problem completely. We are dependent on you to help us reach our climate goals. The climate movement is strong, but it could be even stronger with even more support, so I am strongly urging the Climate Action Council to start implementing New York’s climate law immediately, starting with the easiest step of all-electric new buildings starting in 2024, just like what Washington state, Montreal, Germany are doing. Such buildings actually cost less than homes and buildings that burn fossil fuels. We have already done irreversible damage to this planet and can’t afford to wait anymore. Thank you. | |
| Daniel,Fusco | My wife and I just returned from a walk down our beautiful road, as we have done for 30 + years. We are dedicated land custodians and conservationist working to protect grasslands and bird habitat, as well as maintaining a healthy lifestyle for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. We are extremely opposed to the solar initiated and proposed massive industrial development in our area. We have extensively review the scoping plan and find it to be reckless and destructive. Certainly, we understand, this is not the intention. On our walk we noticed hundreds of acres of wonderful grassland being mowed down, not harvested, for the purpose of clearing the land for solar. Doing so this time of year is highly disruptive to grassland birds, their nests, and their newborn. Literally thousand have been destroyed for sure. On these fields we have enjoyed seeing hundreds of species, most notably the endangered and threatened Upland Sandpiper, Norther Harrier Hawks, and Short Eared Owls. I will upload an image so you can see the proposed devastation and over development of solar. What is being proposed is atrocious! I ask you to be more sensible and not let the foreign developers decide what happens on our lands. They are proposing to cover far too much land area. Please look at the proposed map. Then there is the issue of high voltage transmission power lines. The Electro Magnetic Radiation from this type of industrial infrastructure is highly destructive to human, plant, and animal life. NY has always been a leader in protecting the environment and wildlife. Approaching renewable energy in this manner will irradiate decades of great achievements. | ||
| Charles,Sharrow | I strongly urge you to vote NO on all proposals. Your proposals would be an extreme hardship on rural communities where gas powered equipment is the only viable solution to getting anything done. Electric alternatives are extremely expensive and do not effectively do the job. Burning fuel oil , natural gas and wood burning stoves is the only solution for keeping our homes warm. Believe me I know. I have an air source heat pump in my home and it will not keep our house warm when it gets below 20 degrees. And a ground source heat pump is out of my price range. I understand that this state is now run by NYC Democrats and they do not understand what it takes to live in a rural environment. However, what is being proposed would be akin to removing all public transportation in big cities and telling people to walk or ride a bike. You would never do that to them, why are you doing this to us ? This proposal would destroy rural communities and the exodus from NYS would be greater than it already is. Somehow, I do not think that you care and that quite possibly that is your aim. But that is another subject. If this proposal passes, god help our rural communities, especially the elderly and those that live day to day to scratch out a living in these northern climes. With that said, if these insane, overreaching proposals pass, I hope the people of NY turn out in droves to vote against those that have turned our lives upside down. Again, I strongly urge you to vote NO ! | ||
| Joseph,Riester | Although I agree with utilizing renewable energy to help protect our earth, I feel that legislation requiring change is not the best route at this time. Our country is going through difficult times due to many world wide issues. Should we incentivize changes? Maybe. But we should not be forced to change right now. Please consider other options to protect our earth. | ||
| Laurie,Feine-Dudley | UCAN | We are writing to you as representatives of United Climate Action Network (UCAN), a grassroots environmental organization in Central New York that brings together individuals and organizations working to confront our climate crisis. UCAN has educated the community about recycling practices and residential and large-scale solar installations; planted 220 trees in a reforestation project at Stone Quarry Hill Art Park; launched a volunteer-based water quality monitoring program; and worked with our legislators in Albany advocating for climate issues. Just recently, Cazenovia Earth Week 2022 involved 26 local groups coming together to present more than 20 events exploring actions people can take in their homes, neighborhoods, and communities to save the planet. New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is necessarily complex and ambitious. The Draft Scoping Plan serves as a framework for implementation of this legislation, and our organization has been reading, discussing, and hearing from experts about the Scoping Plan. We have been tasked with communicating UCAN’s comments on the Transportation portion of the Scoping Plan. Sincerely, Laurie Feine-Dudley and Helen Beale | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk blog | I prepared this comment because I thought that a concern Ms. Arbetter brought up in a recent interview was appropriate for a comment. In particular, the Integration Analysis vehicle cost projections rely on a single vehicle type for light-duty vehicles. In the first place the value for regular vehicles seems high and, relative to all electric-vehicle prices last fall, the battery-electric costs seem low. The Climate Action Council should consider updating the Integration Analysis to better represent the types of vehicles used. The Council should also consider whether the costs of used cars should be incorporated into the analysis particularly because low and middle-income households purchase used cars rather than new cars. Finally, I question the optimistic rate of battery-electric cost price decreases used in the Integration Analysis. Of particular note is that there is no difference between the low-technology trajectory and the reference trajectory in the Integration Analysis spreadsheet IA-Tech-Supplement-Annex-1-Input-Assumptions | |
| Beth,Guglielmi | I just want to say how extremely important this plan is. Our children's future depends on our acting. It's so important that nothing derail or weaken this plan or halt its implementation. I urge all concerned to do their very best to support this plan to help our children have a decent life on this planet. Thank you, Beth Guglielmi | ||
| Curt,Wells | The Aluminum Association | Attached find comments of the Aluminum Association on the CLCPA Draft Scoping Plan. Curt Wells The Aluminum Association | has attachment |
| Vance,Curtis | I agree that that the environment needs to be protected but: Limiting natural gas service in buildings and stopping natural gas appliance sales is just not the solution. Limiting petroleum based vehicles isn’t plausible either. You have not taken into account the limitations of the electrical grid. And you have been short sighted in your projecting of the true costs The effects of these proposed laws would be just detrimental to our New York state economy. | ||
| Eric,Kessler | NY leadership in building a decarbonized economy is of the highest importance for me and my family, to protect economic prosperity for our country, and a livable future for my children. In particular, 1) I strongly support the process laid out in the Scoping Plan for regulations that ensure a continual decline in GHG emissions from power plants, reaching zero by 2040. I urge to find opportunities to further accelerate retirement of fossil fuel plants, and re-use of retired sites for renewables generation of long-duration storage (batteries) 2) I urge that the scoping plan denies ANY new gas infrastructure permits, including a residential gas hook-up ban. 3) NYS Office of Renewable Siting needs to set annual goals for permitting renewable energy projects, in line with the 70% renewables by 2030 goal 4) accelerate deployment of long duration storage and demand response solutions. The technology is there and large scale deployment will accelerate the price curve drop like it has been demonstrated in solar &wind over the past decade. Best regards, Dr Eric Kessler | ||
| Margaret ,Kimpel | I think it is unreal to think that we can accomplish all of this in just a few years . Our electric grid is not ready for such an influx. We already have issues with the electrical grid when we have a heat wave and everyone wants to run air conditioning. Why not upgrade our power grid and get it to where it needs to be and then gradually add each of your ideas one at a time to be sure it works . Also you need to think of the financial impact this will have on New Yorkers. I love my state and don’t want to have to move out , but with the high taxes and now this it is becoming more and more a reality for me. | ||
| Terry,Howell | Where does ONTARIO COUNTY stand with regard to NYSERDA, LEEDS, and any pilot programs for green energy including SOLAR ENERGY? Thanks ! | ||
| Terry,Howell | Although The plan has merit, It is truly lacking in accountability in COSTS and to whom? With the amount of money we, as NYS TAX PAYERS, are already overburdened! Especially (WE) SR> Citizens. NYC and the other large municipal areas have mass transit at their disposal, rural communities do not, plus the large cities receive FEDERAL and STATE funding for there Mass Transit! We will get to achieve goals, but I feel it will require more time than the present plan. And why in my own home county, ONTARIO, have we opted out of NYSERTA and LEEDS and other GREEN INATIVES ? Ontario Co. has NO current or planned pilot programs according to the reps. I have met with. WHY is this ? as most all other counties have opted in! As a very concerned voter, reader, and contributor, I hope to find out and keep abreast of these and many of NYS forums. Thank you for this forum and the ability to comment. Respectfully submitted, Terry Howell | ||
| Victoria,Watson | We need some common sense voiced on New York’s costly energy policies. This is a dark and unaffordable road we are heading down. New York Government is killing our economy and the next steps they are trying to implement concerning energy will not help, they will only thrust even more people into poverty. It is unreasonable to want no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings by 2024. It is not realistic to want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035. How has no one noticed that the electric grid can't handle the current uses in the summer when it's hot. Adding to it will only create more crises. By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany leaders are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. Put frankly: It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. We are experiencing an energy affordability crisis with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills, and the highest gas prices on record. Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden everyday New Yorkers. All lives matter and should not be sacrificed to the environmental gods. Steps should be taken to help people alongside helping our habitat. One step at a time, not giant leaps like lemmings following each other over a cliff. | ||
| Suzanne,Coogan | Following was submitted to Batavia Daily News 6/11/22. To the Editor: Re: “Confer: My comments about the Climate Act,” June 8 Thank you, Mr. Confer, for sharing your comments about the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan, and for urging others to do the same based on the newly extended July 1 deadline. I couldn’t agree more enthusiastically with you about what amounts to the labor benefits of renewable energy, and the need to invest massively in job training programs to ready people with the right skills. Too many decry the jobs that will be lost when fossil fuel plants are unplugged, but those jobs are already on the wane, and new opportunities greatly outweigh the old. However, on the state of renewables, it is my understanding that grid-sized battery energy storage systems already exist, and quite a variety of them, not just lithium. Certainly, we need to expand radically the amount of storage of intermittent power, as we must increase wind and solar capacity to best meet our growing power needs. | ||
| Mary M,Trost | We need some common sense voiced on New York’s costly energy policies. This is a dark and unaffordable road we are heading down. New York Government is killing our economy and the next steps they are trying to implement concerning energy will not help, they will only thrust even more people into poverty. It is unreasonable to want no new gas service to existing buildings and no natural gas within newly constructed buildings by 2024. It is not realistic to want no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying beginning in 2030 and no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035. How has no one noticed that the electric grid can't handle the current uses in the summer when it's hot. Adding to it will only create more crises. By cutting off dependable sources of energy, Albany leaders are crafting a recipe for disaster for our communities. Put frankly: It would be costly to the state and ineffective on a global scale. We are experiencing an energy affordability crisis with surging inflation, rising home heating and electric bills, and the highest gas prices on record. Now is not the time to add to that burden with unrealistic goals that will only hurt and burden everyday New Yorkers. All lives matter and should not be sacrificed to the environmental gods. Steps shpuld be taken to help people alongside helping our habitat. One step at a time, not giant leaps like lemmings following each other over a cliff. | ||
| Daniel ,Bauer | Having seen no cost assessment, of these proposals, I am a sceptic as to whether me and my family can continue to afford living in NYS. Such first in the country, heavy handed initiatives, generated by a NYS government with past poor planning, and corruption history leads me to question the intentions of this plan. | ||
| Amy,Mayne | As a lifelong New Yorker, I am against the initiatives to remove gas appliances. I am against not allowing buildings to be built with access to gas. I am most definitely against the elimination of gas vehicles. We need access to affordable methods of heating, cooking, and drying clothes. Our family needs these, and most other New Yorkers do, too. Most people prefer cooking on gas, and the restaurants that New Yorkers enjoy also employ gas to cook the foods people love. Eliminating gas cookers would adversely affect the food industry in NY. We also need access to gas powered vehicles. Ours is a family of 9, and no electric vehicle is going to transport our family. Electric vehicles would be prejudiced against large families. Electric vehicles are a terrible scourge on the natural resources of the earth. Mining for electric vehicles is expensive, destructive, and costly. Disposal of electric vehicles will also be cost prohibitive to New Yorkers as well as damaging to our environment as battery cells deteriorate and leak. Finally, electric vehicles are hazardous in motor vehicle accidents, as fires cannot be extinguished quickly or easily. Normal means of extinguishment will not work for electrical car fires. They can burn for hours or days, and can spontaneously combust long after the accident is over. This would place an unnecessary burden on local fire departments in addition to the extreme danger to those in or around motor vehicle accidents. Getting rid of gas and switching to electric may seem well-meaning, but is a misguided and utterly inappropriate idea. Do your research and say “no” to the elimination of gas appliances, heaters and vehicles. Thank you. | ||
| Todd,Heusner | This idea of outlawing natural gas to new buildings is ridiculous. It seems part of this fantasy of a green transition in an unrealistic period of time. Natural gas plays a crucial role in any transition to a so called green economy. Without coal, oil, NG and nuclear, an unbearable near term future of power outages and high costs will ensue. And of course the rapid fleeing of more people from the state. When will NY grasp that its high and mighty plans mean nothing in the scope of a world in which coal plants are still coming on line weekly in Asia. Failing to understand that NY is a tiny part of a global climate and economy will continue to put undue burdens on its citizens. | ||
| judith,ackerman | none | Between the hours of 7 and 8, not sure exactly when, a bad exhaust emission smell comes into the air of the courtyard at 636 west end, from some hi-riser. It lasts for about 10-15 minutes. It feels that something illegal is being done somewhere in the neighborhood. Is there anything that can be done? | |
| Mark,Halloran | The elimination of natural gas for home heating will pose an unreasonable cost in both transition too and operation of electric heat. This proposal should be be discontinued until the electric system is capable of generating sufficient power with "clean" fuel means and electric heating appliances which are efficient enough to provide heat at a reasonable cost are available.. Subsides should be provided to home owners if they are required to convert to electric heat for both installation. Subsides for electric heat costs should also be provided unless it is comparable to the currently used fuel. | ||
| Tanya,Goldstein | I haven’t read the topics yet, but as a New York State citizen and as a person living on this planet, my wish for you and for our elected officials is that you should work together to make the transition to a fossil fuel free economy as soon as possible, while mitigating to the greatest extent possible the short term economic pain such a quick transition would cause. Think carefully about who would suffer from having to comply with any new rule or regulation, and make sure they are taken care of. Make the right thing to do the easy thing to do! Just to pick a topic off the top of my head, if you are going to ban using oil or gas for heat, (as I believe is necessary) then you need to have a plan in place for people who live paycheck to paycheck or have no paycheck and have absolutely no way to afford replacing their heating system. A tax credit won’t cut it for folks who have no money to lay out up front, and who cannot take on more debt. There are people you would just have to go and install heat pumps for them. Our elected officials need to stop posturing, roll up their sleeves and work together. It will take a lot of effort, compromise, and yes, taxpayer money. But what better to spend taxpayer money on than the taxpayers themselves? | ||
| Paul,DaCorta | Quit over burdening NYS with climate initiatives. Sure, look for ways to save the state and its residents money and comply with federal regulations, but don't impose stricter rules on NY than other states. That will, in most cases simply move carbon emissions to other places rather than reduce them. | ||
| Tracy,Hemen | ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE ????? New York residents do NOT want your brand of crazy. We CANNOT afford it!!! It all sounds wonderful on paper and makes you all feel good about yourselves but is not practical or affordable for us peasants. Besides the fact that NY and CA are not going to make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. For something this huge it should be a vote on the ballot in November. Quit ramming your insanity down our throats. No wonder residents are fleeing this state…..might just join them. | ||
| Dennis,Maye | Found a major issue why your plan will not work. There are 8 million NewYorkers that are being forced to transition but you dont have any Contractors, That is why you have only 12 NYSERDA loans out, You need to stop screwing around, Residents get an estimate give it to you, You give NYSERDA loan to resident, we pay licensed contractor, we send to you receipt, Transition legal,Safe and complete. | ||
| Erin,Guild | We need to ban the use of PFAS-laden sewage sludge and end toxic incineration. This pollutant would be devastating to our farm fields and crops. | ||
| Dennis,Maye | Your site is as worthless as the people who made it, Just give the people the NYSERDA loans and we will find our own contractors, Contractors refuse to work in Essex county for NYSERDA. FYI I have an estimate from an insured HVAC company for a heatpump but your worthless site is a deterrent. | ||
| Thomas,Mays | This plan/proposal is ridiculous Why the assualt on the middle class? we are struggling with out of control property taxes, Never ending gasoline prices raising every day Inflation going thru the roof and now this ridiculous Plan Just the other day I read where RGE electric wants to raise their rates by 22% How much more do you want to choke the middle class in NY? Do you realize that back in the 70s there was a push for electric homes and the cost for the heating part was thru the roof? people switched from electric to gas/oil because the cost of electric was disastrous You people have NO regard to to struggling people of this state and wonder why people are leaving in droves, thru the highest taxes in the nation and an inept government who DOESNT CARE the impacts of ridiculous policy's like the one your trying to push thru In the overall picture we can be as clean as possible but what about China Russia and the 3rd world country's that don't care about emissions? But lets burden NYS taxpayers with the policy's without their regards WE need change in this state alright TIME TO GET RID OF OUR ELECTED POLITICANS NO ON THIS PROPOSAL | ||
| Frederick ,Miller | Government over reach!!!!! Screw the little guy. This is some kind of b------ | ||
| Kenneth ,Eckhardt | This plan is on track with other so called world improvement push that only empowers more restrictions on everyday people and livelihood and most likely more government corruption. The recent pandemic is a snapshot of how the corrupt organizations turn a average situation into a giant catastrophe. There has to be a clear evidence of no financial gain by anyone or agencies involved in the draft and should be clearly vetted and that on display foremost. Given all the recent corruption and false information one has to be skeptical of any bold new plan regardless of how wonderful it looks. The list of people and their affiliation to any financial gain to the proposed plan should be exposed first. An alternative solution should be explored and revealed for each step including a feasible goal and realistic timeframe. So far how has the man made utopia to world situation panned out? Maybe good on paper but I personally don’t see it or live it. | ||
| Gary,Palmer | There is very little actual substance to this plan. Much more detail is needed. Studies need to be conducted to analyze the true cost of the plan, The impact of removing farmland from crop production to produce a product you can't eat.. There are no true studies of putting large wind turbines with in close proximity to the public which may have a serious impact on public health. There is a serious disconnect as to the true nature of solar and wind production in a northern climate where sunlight and wind are in limited supply. There is also the fact of severe winter weather, which shut down Texas green energy production to a storm that is common in NY. The technology for transmission and storage of electric across the state is far behind the timeline proposed in the plan. Therefore implementing this plan now is putting the cart Infront of the horse. Rushing headlong into something to fix a problem that will have little actual effect in the overall environment due to the actions that other states and countries are not doing near the same level of change as New York is a burden upon the residents of New York. There is much "green" energy already in use in New York. Much of the hydro electric damns are not running at capacity. Studies need to be conducted to see what the impact of intermittent energy sources will have upon the availability of electricity supply. Quality of life could be drastically impacted by rushing blindly into this plan that does not take in the way of life of rural New York. Farming and longer commute distances can't be sustained with electric vehicles. Respectfully submitted by Gary Palmer | ||
| James,Bencic | As a taxpayer my wife and I own an apartment building. This helps us get some extra income which enables us to stay in New York. I just want to ask our leaders, are you capable of thinking about anything rationally, or do you all think and make decisions like a 14 year old male with an undeveloped brain. Please sit down and make a pros and cons list. I was taught this method of decision making in the third grade. If you do this you will see many of these future plans for a greener New York will have a drastic negative effect on the middle supporting class of this state. Your entire leadership class has no original ideas and are incapable of finding solutions that help New Yorkers. Just stop writing and/or proposing legislation you have had your boot on our necks to long and our neck may snap with one more bill. | ||
| Fengxian ,Liu | This plan is very disappointing . It has no basis in science. We have the best system of energy in the world. We have energy whenever we want at a very competitive price. In addition our environment has never been cleaner. We need to do cost benefit analyses on these ideas. You will quickly send farmers and other individuals out of our state. These ideas make no basic sense. Please reconsider political correctness is killing our state. It might help if we didn’t have full time legislators or require them to have some business experience before they become legislators. Most people can not afford to buy new appliances and electric cars and we should not be forcing them to do so by legislation but by making things that economic sense | ||
| JUSTIN,KANE | This plan is a recipe for generations of inescapable poverty for the great majority of New Yorkers, with vast benefits and accrual of wealth to a tiny class of controllers at the top. If that is your intention, don't change a thing. If any of you do not wish to turn NYS into Venezuela, it's time to totally dismantle this entire program. Please don't demolish the living standard of New Yorkers who are left in the state. | ||
| David,Wagner | I am very disappointed in this plan - this is unrealistic - it will cost taxpayers a huge amount of money as well as anyone who is forced to buy an electric tractor - I am all for a clean environment, but as an engineer I find this to be written by an uninformed group with little understanding of basic science. Our environment has never been cleaner and this is very unrealistic. I am convinced that it is time for me to leave this state - the policies that are being pursued are unrealistic and juvenile. I am also in local government and this will create a great deal of costs for local government which do not need to be forced upon us. What ever happened to making smart economic decisions? I have to balance my family budget and this is a budget buster for all. We have the best system in the world of energy and the people that are making these decisions are not informed of basic science. Gasoline vehicles do not create a large amount of pollution and simply dictating that we stop using the best energy system the world has ever known is ludicrous. David Wagner 585-415-2302. | ||
| Barbara,Thompson | |||
| Thomas,A Caulkins | There are many serious problems with moving to all electric and zero emissions. I understand reducing greenhouse games and the need for alternate fuel sources. What baffles me if that the hybrid technology for vehicles isn't being expanded on as a better option. Lithium has to be strip mined and processed. It is not a renewable source as it will run out and then what? Also, it's not possible to go all electric. What happens when the power grid goes down? California is a prime example with rolling blackouts. What happens when electricity isn't available for emergency vehicles because of power interruptions. How will it work if you get stuck unexpectedly on the thruway or other main highway because of accidents. The potential for miles of vehicles just sitting on the road because they ran out if battery life? You then have homes being heated by fossil fuels. NYC is not affected as much as the rest of NY in winter. Going all electric means exorbitant e k electric bills that will far exceed what they are now. It's unrealistic for farmers to go all electric as they have crop fields that can be many miles from their farm. They will have to get to the field, plow/plant/water or fertilize and then get back to the farm on a charge with heave farm equipment. The technology does not exist to support them nor construction vehicles. How will construction crews be able to maintain roads when they won't be able to work while charging vehicles, plus how will they charge them while working on the highways. Sadly, I believe our elected politicians have been short sighted on this as there are a great many areas of concern that is impossible to list here with the maximum character constraints. More must be done before anything is mandated and the 2035 deadline needs to be reassessed. | ||
| Kathy,Chapman | As a resident of an agricultural community, and as a senior citizen, I find your plan is not terribly realistic. The technology is not yet available. Farmers can barely afford to run their farms now, and you will be forcing them to buy expensive (and currently non-existing) equipment.The idea that people will be walking and bicycling everywhere is great in NYC, but not feasible in rural Upstate (not to mention the Adirondacks). Batteries to power electric vehicles are NOT environmentally friendly to produce or recycle once their useful life is over. How much land will be taken out of productive use and covered with bird-killing windmills or solar panels? I have to believe that this plan may actually reduce NYS emissions but only by encouraging most people to decide to relocate out of New Youk State. | ||
| William,Krazinski | You all are insane pushing this agenda. Think it thru you are all ill prepared for the consequences of your actions. The constituents will not be able to comply. | ||
| Tanya,Jones | HeartShare Human Services | Testimony of Tanya Jones Senior Director of Energy Assistance & Community Development HeartShare Human Services Public Hearing on New York Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Members of the Climate Action Council, I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on this issue. My name is Tanya Jones and I am the Senior Director of the Energy Assistance & Community Department at HeartShare Human Services. My department administers utility assistance grants for Con Edison, National Grid, NYSEG and RG&E. We have worked with NYSERDA for programs such as Empower NY and Solar For All. Also, we partner with government elected officials, HRA, Public Service Commission and community based organizations to bring maximum benefits to the community as well as educate on programs on a national level. Climate change is a major issue facing us all, though not many understand it. It is wonderful that the State has worked hard on preparing a plan. While the plan is full of great ideas, the customer still seems unprotected. We are living in a time where inflation has become a major issue. There are significant price increases with electricity and consumers can not afford their bills as it is. What measures will be put in place to make sure the customers don't suffer and that the energy supply will be continuous and able to grow? Also, there has been significant job loss during the last two years. How are we protecting jobs with this plan? The state can not afford to have an increase in unemployed residents. Some who have dedicated their life and career to their company. I have worked in the energy and human services field for twenty three years. After reading the plan and giving it careful thought, I feel that a hybrid approach will work. Knowing that clean energy and energy efficiency is the focus, this model which incorporates many different streams of energy, where customers can choose, seems to be best. | |
| Jeffrey,HART | Just one more comment. I would like an acknowledgement from at least one Democrat that read my precious comments, by name. I doubt that will not happen. But please prove me wrong. And provide your response. Regards, Jeff Hart | ||
| William,Pletcher | |||
| Jeffrey,HART | You will never be able to transition to all electric components until you completely upgrade the national power grid. Where are you going to obtain the tax dollars to complete such an upgrade from New Yorkers when people are leaving this State in droves? The numbers will just not add up. Electric appliances are not financially affordable or efficient. I would rather buy 6 gas driven cars in 2034 before I drive an electric one. You are going to drive more people out of this State. You will then have to increase taxes to whoever are left. Good luck with that. I'm all for continuing to be conscience about energy conservation, clean air, water etc. If you really want to save the planet, Send your representatives to China, India, and Russia and let them do their fair share first. This is just more left wing progressive agenda to please a small minority of people, but certainly not all. I dare you to share my comments with the majority of democrats. But my bet is, it will never see the light of day. Regards, Jeff Hart | ||
| Roberta,Cassant | The over usage of wind turbine has been killing eagles. Is flooding our environment with these going to create the extinction to bold eagles? | ||
| Harry ,Reidy | I believe the elimination of the use of natural gas is misguided. It is the most efficient form of energy available to homeowners. Please focus on upgrading and developing the electrical grid before any mandates about restricting natural gas or fuel oil use. | ||
| Richard,Welles | Few Comments: 1. Presently, the storage of power in the electrical grid does not exist. 2. How many acres of farmland and residential properties must be covered by solar panels to achieve the desired goal? 3. The electric grid in California cannot tolerate its current use of electric cars, that I understand has 2% of cars are electric and the state is suffering Brown outs as a result. 4. What will be the expense to the average home owner- people and businesses are already leaving the state due to the costs of taxes etc in New York which has already lost two congressional seats as a result and perhaps more as the 2020 census is be reassessed. 5. Broken windmill blades are already being stacked up and non recyclable. So also are the Lithium batteries from electric cars as they also are currently unable to be recycled. 6. The climate and temperature would be helped in general by increasing forestation in rural areas but especially in cities where the heat of concrete and pavement cause large areas of heat source being released during nighttime into the environment as well as during the day. ( Not to mention reducing CO2) There does not appear to be any effort the proposal for these considerations. 7. If the current plan is adhered to, I believe there will continue to be an exodus from the state. | ||
| Kathleen,Mock | I support the purpose of the Draft Scoping Plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in order to slow down destruction from climate change. I agree with the Plan on making it mandatory for behavior compliance. We would be foolish to think that much progress in major reductions could be accomplished by voluntary cooperation. This is going to be a tough challenge for businesses and institutions and individuals to carry out and I would expect that the Climate Action Council will address hardships caused to rural communities (which include my own county). However, I can see that long term effects of eliminating fossil fuel emissions will be beneficial to everyone. In the long run, protecting the environment will save us horrendous losses and unimaginable costs of climate catastrophes. | ||
| Craig,Swiech | I support protecting our environment but have several concerns about the Draft Scoping Plan. Converting everything to electric would be a mistake. Most of NY’s power production comes from fossil fuels. If fossil fuels are no longer used to produce electricity, what would meet the energy demands of NY residents? An established natural gas system already exists that delivers energy safely and reliably to meet NY’s demands today. NY’s existing power grid cannot handle the existing electric load. If even more demand is placed on the current grid, reliability may decrease significantly. The amount of capital investment required to improve the grid so it can handle such larger demands would be overly burdensome on New Yorkers. If New Yorkers are forced to replace gas appliances with electric appliances, they will need to upgrade the electric systems in their homes and incur insurmountable costs for less reliability. NY residents must have a reliable source of heat to survive harsh winter conditions. Power outages are common, often affect thousands of customers at a time and can last for extended periods of time. And that is with the existing grid, before any additional load is placed on it. Gas outages are not common. Thankfully, most residents in WNY get their heat from natural gas, which means they have a consistent and reliable source of heat every winter. Imagine what would happen if all that heating load is shifted to an electric grid that cannot handle it on peak days in the winter when customers need it the most. That would be irresponsible and dangerous. Shifting all of NY’s energy needs to electric is a mistake. I have not seen a practical plan for realistically achieving this goal. The natural gas industry can help NY meet climate action goals, without bankrupting New Yorkers and subjecting them to being without heat when they need it most. Please consider a solution where residents have access to both natural gas and electric for their energy needs. | ||
| Nate,Owens | I appreciate all the hard work that so many people have put into this document and I support taking aggressive actions to address the climate crisis. As an urban planner with 10 years of experience, I am encouraged my many of the key strategies listed in the scoping plan. I do have a few comments. Transportation - Key Strategy T7 There are a couple important components of the public education effort to promote density in developed areas. Many established neighborhoods resist development projects that are characterized or perceived as dense development. Understanding the benefits of smart growth and mixed use development is great, but they also need to understand and visualize what to expect. There are tools such as visual preference surveys and photosimulations that can help communicate nuanced design details that make a difference when working with neighborhoods on zoning changes, area plans, or during reviews of development proposals. It is critical that people understand that mixed use projects with modest residential density can be integrated into an area and look attractive, while providing a range of neighborhood benefits. Additionally, public education around density should also highlight that hyperdense development is not the end goal. Taller buildings are not more sustainable, according to recent scholarship (Pomponi, F., Saint, R., Arehart, J.H. et al. Decoupling density from tallness in analysing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cities. npj Urban Sustain 1, 33 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00034-w). Land Use or Adaptation and Resilience Consider including a strategy or language under Land Use or Adaptation and Resilience for the greening and rewilding of urban and suburban environments. Example: Singapore. Green roofs, green walls, and green stormwater infrastructure can mitigate pollution and provide mental and physical health benefits, social benefits, and economic benefits. | ||
| Luann ,Meyer | SWANA - NY Chapter | Please see attached document as our comment submission. Thank you. | has attachment |
| C.J.,Randall | Town of Lansing | ||
| Dan,Mathis | Next100 | ||
| Andrew,Whitmore | Concerned Taxpayer | Please, please, please put this craziness on hold. Inflation is killing our household. Many weeks my wife can't buy meat because the cost of groceries is so high and our gasoline bill is so much higher. The technology isn't there yet, you can't force it and you are greatly diminishing most citizens quality of life. It would be much cheaper to build in redundancy to adapt to climate change than to force this huge cost on common New Yorkers which won't mean anything in the global scheme anyways. If you have any humanity on the hardworking, taxpayers of New York will will stop this madness, encourage the production of Natural Gas and nuclear, and figure out how to adapt to global climate change. You are impoverishing most New Yorkers for no good benefit - until China, India and others change their fuel consumption anything NY does is meaningless. I am begging you to stop this economic torture and face the reality that there is no reasonable way to transition away from natural gas and nuclear power at this time without impoverishing working New Yorkers. Please, please, please stop this economic madness so my kids will be able to afford to live in New York and we won't be destitute. | |
| Robert,Perez | This plan is purposely complex and extensive with the purposeful intent to confound the average NYer and bury the profound downside impacts. It caters to small special interest groups at the sacrifice to all NYers. NYers are being sold a pile of expensive hogwash. No one can afford this plan. This risk and downside are real for those that are not financially wealthy and capable of simply moving elsewhere when it fails to provide basic energy needs at a cost that is not possible to meet those in need. | ||
| Duncan,Carlson | I see nothing in this plan that is good for NYS. Are you people going insane.... don't you have any common sense. No wonder people are moving from New York which is a beautiful state but has a government out of control. In a perfect would we citizens would be able to hold all government officials responsible for their actions long after they leave office. I have no hope for our future and the proposals in this nitwit plan will help insure it becomes a third world economy. | ||
| Joseph,Wilson | Coalition for Outreach, Policy and Education | ||
| Meme,Hanley | Land Trust Alliance | We have also commented on appendix H. Thank you for taking the time to collect and read these comments. Please note that these comments are from the Land Trust Alliance and 24 land trusts named on the letter. | |
| Martin,Burrello | Three reasons in opposition. 1)Diversity We need to develop and explore all methods for creating energy for a healthy and growing economy. All come with costs. Wind farms pose a danger to birds. Solar panels use rare earth minerals, mined in questionable ways. Both have limited life spans and pose environmental and disposal problems. Solar and wind are unreliable, being subject to weather conditions, and cannot be recycled. 2) Mobility Physical mobility will be drastically limited by higher energy costs, especially in government, schools and businesses. These higher costs will effect the movement of people, goods and ideas across the state as they will be passed on to tax payers. Disposable income for ordinary people will decrease. A committee ought to be formed to bring down energy cost. This would benefit all and liberate all. 3)Freedom The free market ought to regulate the economy, not biased, speculative, political, manipulators. The bias is self-evident in the committee's name. The argument against fossil fuels is based on a biased interpretation of select data. One could argue that using gas and oil has curbed the effects of climate changes brought on by solar flares, sunspots, volcanoes, and wild fires. This waste of tax payer money should be defunded. Communist 5 or 10 year plans have no place in a free society. Rather than law, let people set examples. If it works, more people will follow. It is criminal to coerce a free people. Besides, maybe a warmer earth can be a good thing with longer growing seasons and increased food production. | ||
| john,Urtz | Just use common sense if you are going to continue down this path. This is nothing but far left nonsense and everyone knows it. It's just another completely useless democrat plan to control every single corner of our lives. Natural gas is an excellant bridge to the future yet democrats insist in this fools errand. John M.Urtz | ||
| Ashvin,Shah | As an Indian-American professional engineer with education and experience in two countries and as a New Yorker since 1968, I am pleased to see NYS CAC preparing and releasing the Scoping Plan for public comment at a time when no credible global or national entity has stepped forward to offer a plan of action on climate six years after the Paris Climate Agreement was signed on Earth Day in 2016. I write to offer two suggestions. The Scoping Plan is meant to “achieve statewide net zero emissions” [p.27]. The Plan adequately addresses emissions embodied in goods brought into NYS from other American states. However, the Plan omits to address substantial NYS emissions embodied in goods imported from other countries. During the technological revolution of past two centuries, the global rich have internalized most benefits of technologies for themselves while externalizing most of its adverse social and environmental impacts to the global poor and the environment. In essence, the global economy has three problems accumulated over two centuries: it is socially inequitable, environmentally unsustainable, and causes climate change. The CAC’s focus on only one global problem, namely, climate change is unlikely to help achieve its NYS climate goals. The ideas of climate justice of Chapter 6 and the principles of just transition of Chapter 7 apply also to the LMI communities outside NYS. I suggest CAC include a plan to achieve by 2050 net zero emissions from imported goods. “Going forward, New York will promulgate regulations, enact new laws, and adopt policies program to implement the strategies and recommendations in the final Scoping Plan" [p.330]. I suggest CAC involve professional engineers charging them to use ANSI's consensus process to develop codes and standards for each economic sector [Transportation, Buildings, Electricity, Industry, Land-use] for approval of CAC prior to taking necessary political action to implement the Scoping Plan. | ||
| Susan,Riek | This plan is totally unrealistic for NY residents! Our neighboring county, which we do most of our business in, within the last 5 years, put in natural gas supply lines to many residences. Now, you want to negate that work and make everyone switch to total electric dependency??? Our electrical grid can't even support what we have NOW!!! As a long time resident and home owner, I say NO to this proposal. Most sincerely Susan Riek | ||
| Steve,Beyers | Private Citizen | See attached short memo | has attachment |
| Kurt,Zurmuhlen | NYS ECO (Ret.) | The recent Joint Comprehensive Plan developed for the Village and Town of Richfield Springs, NY won Statewide recognition as exemplary! In it, we touted Natural Gas as an Asset, and an incentive for Businesses to come to the area. We experience long cold Winters, and many homeowners here have switched from sulfer compound emitting Oil furnaces to efficient Natural Gas heat (with incentives from NYSEG). Now the State is suddenly Opposed to Natural Gas in this Plan! Why??? The unrealistic Plan is too much One Size Fits All Mandates, and takes away freedom of choice of how to Heat (and alternate source of heat in an emergency) and Power consumer's homes and businesses in the bitter cold upstate New York Winters. People should be able to choose methods of heating their home and alternate sources of heating. The market should decide which vehicles are popular (or, should we first ban all race car events?) Not everyone can afford an electric vehicle. Many older people here are on fixed incomes. Public transit, including trains, seem underused. Further, we do not have the power grid built out to support all electric vehicles. I am an advocate for reducing environmental impacts, but not by abrupt decree. This impractical expensive (to the consumer) Plan if enacted is unenforceable. | |
| Maryann,Spychalski | As a life long resident of NY state, I am appalled at this outrageous, contrived proposal by the "Green People". This control of our lives has gone to far. Our freedoms are being taken away by the people we voted in to represent us in this state to protect our God given rights. All electric vehicles, no natural gas, a mileage fee to drive our cars because your electric cars can not be charged a Gas Tax, etc., etc.! You people need to see the "light". Remember, we put you in these positions of power and we can elect to vote you out. You can be sure that we will do just that! | ||
| Douglas,Galenza | It seems that the plan overly relies on curtailing use of current available and cost effective sources of energy. There is little evidence of a proper cost effective alternative that will be in place. This will result in this already over legislated state going further into that territory, which always seems to have a direct correlation to the ludicrous cost of living we already endure. I am already planning on retiring early in order to exercise my options to live unrestrained elsewhere and this will only hasten that desire. | ||
| Richard,Dye | Sirs, Please do not proceed with this proposal. It is a recipe for disaster. Our current technology will not support this any time soon. | ||
| Mary Ellen,Kunst | Well, this Climate Act will certainly seal the fate of the residents of New York State, as if Taxes have not been high enough. The southern tier of New York are hard working people, raising families and also retired folks. Where will the money come from when people can't make ends meet now? Who ever is developing this plan does not live in the real world. Real estate is bad now. I know. We just sold our house. I can't imagine how bad it will be after this Act is instated. In NYC do you think slum lords will pay to change heating systems in apartment buildings? As a result, you will have more homeless residents of NY. Where is the common sense? Electric service is not reliable in our area. You are using Solar and Wind with hazardous material, and no where to safely decompose the hazardous components. What about the rest of the world, especially, CHINA and INDIA. The Council has a narrow mind if they think going electric will save our world, when the culprits are on the other side of this earth. The answers do not lie in the laps of this Council. Come out in the real world and do your job like it should be done. Talking with residents and visiting communities, not sitting behind a desk. My family has been a resident of NY State since 1649. 373 years. People will leave in mass exodus if you instate this plan, then we'll see how you run New York City when the tax payers in the southern tier, western and upstate New York leave. | ||
| Jordan,Flanagan | AJW, Inc. | Hi, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Climate Action Council's Draft Scoping Plan. I am submitting comments on be half of LEILAC. For any follow-up questions or communications, please reach out to Daniel Rennie, CEO, LEILAC at ----------------. | might have attachment |
| Sylvia,Moore | However well intentioned, the scoping plan is ill conceived and incomplete. It is ill conceived in that it does not take into account the needs and realities of living and working in rural New York State. It is incomplete in that it does not have a cost benefit analysis. | ||
| Erin,Bonacci | Bath Electric, Gas and Water Systems | My name is Erin Bonacci. I am the Director of Municipal Utilities of Bath Electric, Gas and Water Systems (BEGWS), the utility department of the Village of Bath. BEGWS operates, maintains and improves the Village-owned electric, gas, water and sewer utilities. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Scoping Plan. We need to develop a well-thought-out approach and realistic timetable that will afford NYS the opportunity to properly transition to a zero-carbon economy. This will require new technologies as we do not have all the solutions as we enter this 25–30-year plan. We must be TENACIOUSLY PATIENT as we work to finalize the Draft Scoping Plan. As a municipally-owned electric utility, we anticipate electrification will switch NYS to a winter peaking grid in the mid-2030’s as our heating, transportation and electric generation will be dependent on electricity vs other types of energy sources. Near term failures could derail the effort and create other unintended consequences including public safety, resiliency and reliability concerns. This will be jeopardized significantly should NYS move forward with a ban on natural gas in the short-term. Long-term solutions must be developed and thoroughly evaluated. The cost to NYS residents and businesses MUST BE CONSIDERED. NYS MUST STRIKE A BALANCE. These solutions, which will work in partnership with other established and emerging technologies, could include storage, Renewable Natural Gas and hydrogen. With that said, they are not the only solutions necessary as we embark on a 25 year plus carbon reduction challenge. NYS's success or failure will depend on our ability to be patient, flexible, and persistent. We also need to collaborate with our diversified stakeholders. | |
| Nicole,Burt | Greater Southern Tier Boces | With Inflations soaring and paychecks continuing to be the same, I do not have the money or resources to upgrade my homes heating systems and all my gas powered appliances. This is unfair to ask of families and my neighbors in NY state. This year is not the year to be making these types of decisions that will force families to choose between this and feeding their families. | |
| joseph,giammichele | the proposals in this plan are unattainable. we do not have enough electricity now to operate air conditioners in the summer. once all the fuel generating plants are taken off line there will be even less electricity to use. the plan to rely on solar power and wind power sounds good but it will destroy NY's farm industry. the solar fields developed so far have removed 1000's of acres of good farm for producing food. in order to have enough solar power there won't be any farms left to grow food or raise livestock. the solar companies should be ordered to use non-farmable land for the solar fields, such as hillsides. the companies won't do this because the cost of using hillsides is higher than using flat farm lands that don't require tree removal. hydro power is probably the best source of power we have but again there is cost involved that power companies don't want to spend. once autos are switched to electric travel will be restricted due to lack of an extremely large number of charging stations that will be needed at every site. secondly other states may not follow to ny example and charging stations won't be available. for years NY and the federal government have touted natural gas as the cleanest fuel man can use and the plan eliminates this fuel, which we have in abundance. the lack of common sense in this plan is plan is very obvious and this plan as proposed will destroy the life of new yorkers and cost them more than most people make today. to increase wages to a level that people can afford to live with this plan would put all businesses, large and small, out of business. the cost would snowball beyond imagination. | ||
| Jan,Laughlin | The implementation of these plans will totally obliterate my ability to support myself. The cost would supercede my anual income and create an excesive burden on my household. I'm convinced the impact would be the same on huge numbers of other families operating on fixed or low income and on all except the wealthiest of people. This country has a long way to go to be prepared for such drastic changes without a devastating impact on our nation as a whole. | ||
| Timothy,Bolster | So much to comment on, so just simply, no. Nothing presented makes sense. The deadlines to change over, especially as early as two years out, just is not feasible. | ||
| Audrey,Zuk | 1) I strongly oppose the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. It is a radical effort to eliminate reliable, affordable and vital natural energy sources. 2) It is unsustainable, unrealistic, unforgiving and will add unbearable financial strain to already burdened New Yorkers. Do not add to the current crisis. Hard working New Yorkers are already dealing with inflation, shocking prices at the gas pump and increased food costs. 3) Banning natural gas resources is a terrible idea. Outlawing gas appliances for homes/businesses is a terrible idea. Eliminating automobile-gasoline sales is a terrible idea. Instead of banning natural gas resources completely, you should be focusing on providing New Yorkers with reliable, and affordable energy from a variety of sources. 4) The Climate Action Council’s proposals raise serious economic challenges and questions for families. Not only will these disastrous policies add financial strain to New York residents, businesses and communities, but it will also cause more people to leave New York state. 5) Based on these points, reject the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. It is seriously flawed. | ||
| Jefferson ,Vail | This is financially irresponsible to your fellow New Yorkers to under take this endeavor. Fact China Russia and India will not follow our lead. To force New Yorkers to buy into this money grab is preposterous. What about the fact that solar panels are not recyclable and neither are wind turbines or their blades, thus forcing our loved ones to deal the massive landfills needed to dispose of said waste materials? Thank you sincerely Jefferson Vail | ||
| Ronda,Zuk | 1)The Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan needs to be rejected. 2) It is unsustainable, unrealistic and will add unbearable financial burdens to hard-working New Yorkers who are already under a huge strain from inflation, rising gas prices and food costs. 3) Eliminating access to natural gas and outlawing gas equipment is a terrible idea. Instead, you should be focusing on providing abundant, reliable, and affordable energy options from a variety of sources. 4) Not only will this proposal further burden residents, businesses, and communities but it will also force even more people to leave the state. | ||
| Deborah,North | Stop. Just stop. This is a nonsensical, asinine attempt to appear oh so woke and concerned about the future of the country. Have any of the left leaning brain trust members ever visited a farm? Do you have any idea how rural people live, work, GROW YOUR FOOD? Of course not, because the leftist agenda is all about kumbaya, hug a tree, go green. Stop. Just stop. Farmers feed you three times a day and unless all of the hairy armpit vegan Prius buyers wanting fossil fuel vehicles and farm equipment gone learn how to grow enough to feed themselves, it's Soylent Green time. At the risk of offending with vulgarity, what the f--- are you thinking? Wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to keep America feeding the world. The Democratic leadership in Albany is truly clueless. | ||
| ruth,wolcott | I am totaly against this plan. Too extreme. | ||
| scott,schumacher | Lack of education by elected officials. Electric vehicles use much carbon to recharge. Electric vehicles are not very recyclable. Very difficult for many gas heated buildings to transition to other sources. this plan is just plain stupid. Undue cost on middle class families. Elected officials should look to assist not dictate to constituents. I am retired on fixed income thanks for additional burden. Love much on my birth state. This mentality will be comfortable in a new state downstate. No BS I am seriously (sadly) researching home ownership elsewhere and any time in NY state will be as a very limited tourist. Hopeful for reasonable plans but doubtful central ny voters will considered over politics. Good luck to your families | ||
| John,Saeli | Saeli Implement | The proposal to eliminate gas will bankrupt New York & it's citizens. We still farm with tractors 60 years old. Some gasoline, some diesel. How can a Family Farm, trying to survive afford to park our tractors and purchase new? We cannot. Our homes and buildings are heated with clean burning Natural Gas and Propane, as well as almost all the homes and industry in villages, towns and cities. Have you considered the impacts of your proposals to eliminate gas and convert to electricity? Have you even considered NYSEGS request for a 30% rate increase just applied for? The grid could not even support what you are proposing. We can run a tractor 12 hours, pull up to a fuel tank and in 3 minutes we are back in the field. Will we be able to do that with electric? No. We can drive our gas powered vehicles 400 miles, pull into a station and in 3 minutes we are back on the road. Will we be able to do that with an electric vehicle? No. Do you people even study science or simply fall for the hype. It is scientific fact that sun spot activity controls our climate. Carbon Dioxide?? Everything we use is clean burning, but CO2 levels rise, supposedly. How much CO2 do the forest fires around the world release into the atmosphere. How about volcanic eruptions? In2021 there were 69 volcanic eruptions. Currently there are 48 active volcanos. Has anyone considered the consequences of taking so much productive food producing cropland out of production to build solar and wind farms? You folks are barking up the wrong tree, acting on hype and not fact, and will bankrupt us all. | |
| George ,Peterson | To Climate Action Council, I understand the need to protect our environment but I fail to see how the use of battery/electric vehicles is feasible in all parts of our country. Charging is expensive, takes time, makes traveling for business or pleasure almost impossible and not conducive to cold weather. Hybrid vehicles would be much more useful to the majority. I would never fly in an airplane that runs solely on a battery as we all know batteries can “die” at the worst of times. Demanding all appliances, furnaces, and garden utensils run electrically will put unfair stress on the newly married, middle age and elderly. Older and even newer homes will have to be modified to change over from natural or propane gas to electric, which is not cheap! Many families try to live on a budget and even more live paycheck to paycheck. This added financial burden would place many in poverty. It is hard enough nowadays to pay for home utilities, groceries, medicines and day to day needs. There has to be a more efficient way to save our world and prevent such drastic climate change while preserving the quality of life for hard working families!! Sincerely, George Peterson | ||
| Deb,Schinsing | 1) I think we should cut out unnecessary fuel use first. How much emission comes from Nascar races? Do we really need 16 flights to Chicago on the same day? Why can't we develop more fuel efficient automobiles? Reward people for using motorcycles, bicycles? Solar panels? 2) How about STOPPING the destruction of rain forests? 3) Cities and towns that use a lot of electricity have frequent brown outs. Do we have the grid to support total electric? I doubt it. China holds the market on batteries. Do we really want to be involved with CHINA? Indebted to China? Controlled by China? 4) Who is going to pay for people to change from a gas furnace to electric? With food and gas prices soaring, no one has money lying around, especially after Covid, ANOTHER gift from China. 5) Tractor trailers don't travel far on batteries. How do you propose to get goods across the country to those in need? 6) I don't think farms can produce enough food with battery powered equipment. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to protect the earth, take better care of it and our resources, but I feel far more cost studies are needed to prove electricity is the better option. The study needs to be FULLY transparent, and not conducted by any parties involved in the proposed change, or who would financially benefit from said change. | ||
| Elio and Therese,DAngelo | The proposed plans are not feasible for New York! To eliminate gas usage for home heating and cooking will help to drive people out of state due to the high cost of electricity. Our electric grid cannot support the demands you are proposing. To heat a home with electricity is very costly. We know this because we had installed electric heat in a cabin located in Ashford and even leaving it at the lowest setting possible it was still unaffordable. Cooking with gas is far more efficient compared to an electric stove. How will the restaurants service by changing to electricity? They had to cope with Covid and now you are proposing to implement converting gas to electric for cooking and heating. Instead of helping small businesses flourish you are punishing them by implementing these restrictions. It’s time to help New York businesses to survive in our state instead of passing legislation that will drive them out. With the high cost of living today it is time to listen and pay attention to our concerns. | ||
| Edward,OCONNOR | retired | ||
| David,Gregory | |||
| Ronald,Peck | The Climate Action Council has assembled a very aggressive and irrational plan. The schedules are way too aggressive and unachievable. The cost to the tax payers will be immense and unaffordable. I am totally against this plan. Thank you, Ronald H. Peck | ||
| Rod,Apuzzo | “Unless action is taken soon, some major cities will be under water, Mr. Guterres said in a video message, which also forecast “unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, widespread water shortages and the extinction of a million species of plants and animals”. -UN News “This is not fiction or exaggeration. It is what science tells us will result from our current energy policies. We are on a pathway to global warming of more than double the 1.5-degree (Celsius, or 2.7-degrees Fahrenheit) limit” that was agreed in Paris in 2015. -Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General Immediate and comprehensive action is imperative if wide-spread catastrophe is to be in any way reduced. Anything less is to betray our children’s future to unrelenting misery. | ||
| Ron,Kunst | Dear Sirs; I am a 76 year old retired New York resident. I live in a manufactured home that was manufactured in the year 2000. I live in a retirement community in the town of Horseheads NY, in the Elmira area of the southern Finger Lakes in New York. I moved to New York in 1987, when my job moved here from Michigan, where I was born and raised. In my current home I have a natural gas hot water heater, clothes dryer and a furnace. So to change over to electric will cost me a bout 15K$ Where am I to come up with this money. We do not have the money to switch over to all electric. I do like the idea of renewable energy but our state and country are not there yet. Plus this country is the cleanest nation on overall emissions. Even if our nation/states go all electric, if we do not get China and a couple of other countries to clean up their emission, there will not be any change in this claimed "Climate Change problem"! Now as to the power grid. It is not robust enough for this new CAC plan. I have only live in this house for less than a year and have had 2 power outages for a couple of hours each, but our old home in the town of Chemung, Chemung County, NY, we would loose power 8 to 12 times a year, for anywhere from 2 hrs to 4 days. I finally had to install a gas generator so we would have electric power. ELECTRIC POWER IS NOT RELIABLE IN RULAL NEW YORK!!! We lived at that house for 30 years. My suggestion for the CAC committee is this. Make renewable energy more reliable, plentiful and cheaper than natural gas and people will want to change over but do not force them too! We are at a 20% renewable energy level in this country. Work on getting it up to 25% in the next 5 years and up to 30% in the next 10 years and work on getting a reliable power grid and state distribution. Thank You Ron Kunst | ||
| Colleen,Klein | New York Corn and Soybean Growers Association | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | Appropriate tree and shrub areas along the highway rights-of-way (ROW) is an important component in this plan. Note however, that the goals of increasing tree / shrub cover for carbon sequestration purposes must be balanced with other competing objectives for NYS along the ROWs. For example, the NYS ROW on roadsides must consider clear zones for safety of occupants of vehicles accidentally veering off the roadway, maintenance of flowering plant (including milkweed) areas to support habitat for pollinators including endangered monarch butterflies, and minimization of salt and winter maintenance needs which can be impacted in tree shading problem areas. Opportunities for reforestation of certain ROW areas is certainly a good component within the plan, but the competing objectives essential to NYS’ role in environmental protections and safety must also be included within the land use planning. Some highway ROWs could be used for solar farms, as there will be no trees in the road blocking the sun. | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | This section does not discuss reducing the amount of roadways, which absorb heat and require resources to maintain. Some roads can be removed or reduced if their traffic switches to bikes or mass transit. We need more mass transit, with more frequent service. This includes both short distance and long distance mass transit (i.e., intercity buses and passenger trains). I agree on the changes in land use policy. Less travel inherently means fewer vehicle miles. As the owner of an electric car, I am acutely aware that we need more true fast chargers. Commuters can charge at work during the day. But for a road trip, fast charging is essential. There need to be more alternatives to driving. Dedicated bike paths specifically for transportation, not recreation, should be developed. Walking routes should be developed. Both of these should be separated from motor vehicle traffic. Should telecommuting be considered as a way to reduce vehicle miles? Also, there is only one reference to "carpool" in the document - that also is a way to reduce vehicle miles. I'd like to see a carbon tax, especially on motor fuels. One issue I see is how railroad companies provide service. This is a bit esoteric, but it does relate to transportation emissions. Railroad companies try to improve their "operating ratio" - expenses divided by revenue. This is mostly to appear more efficient and impress investors on Wall Street. It means the railroads focus on high profit business and drop less profitable operations. In many cases, this means shifting the transportation of items from efficient rail to truck (less efficient, and with other drawbacks). The railroads are private companies, and have the right to be run as they wish (although as monopolies, they should be more regulated). But sometimes the railroads are given taxpayer money for projects. That money should be tied to promises that they will continue to provide services to smaller, less profitable operations. | ||
| David,Halat | Hello, my comments apply to your entire green agenda. You and I both know this agenda will not work & is just another ridiculous (and expensive) feel-good narrative that you pander to hysterically emotional people that will never research anything & don't understand the failures of green energy. For the love of God, please just look at the data from other places that tried this & failed miserably. Please try to learn from history & do the right thing instead of needlessly hurting New Yorkers. I work remotely now, if it becomes too expensive to live here I will just move to another state. I am already getting my house ready for this eventuality & you better believe I'm not alone. Thank you | ||
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce industrial emissions through promoting energy efficiency, switching to low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources, decarbonizing electricity generation, and implementing negative-emissions processes. We must have strict GHG reporting requirements for all industrial GHG emitters, along with programs and incentives for industrial efficiency and decarbonization. Priority must be on polluters in DAC’s as well as the largest overall polluters. Our State purchasing power must be used to incentivize purchase of green products, along with some mandates to prevent the purchase of high-embodied-carbon products for which there are low-embodied-carbon alternatives. In-State economic incentives to grow green industries with green supply chains and green jobs are critical to making green industrial products available for State and private economic activities. Recruiting and training opportunities for green jobs must be focused on residents of DAC’s and members of BIPOC communities, as well as made available to residents statewide. Negative emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage, must not be used as an excuse to continue to pollute. Such technologies must be reserved for those industrial processes for which emissions reductions are most challenging. For example, energy production, whether electrical or chemical, must not be coupled with carbon capture technology, when green alternatives exist. Furthermore, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining must not be allowed in the State, as it does not meet the most basic energy efficiency requirements, and it does not add value to the State economy. Coupling cryptocurrency mining with carbon capture would be doubly sinful. | |
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | wholeheartedly support the plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. I support a per-ton surcharge on all waste to encourage reduction, reuse, and recycling, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. Furthermore, I support legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. I support additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive textile waste reduction and recycling program, expansion of extended producer requirements, and expansion of legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and wastewater resource recovery facilities must be done without harming disadvantaged communities and limited to on-site generation only, as off-site generation poses a high risk of fugitive emissions from transport. | |
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I wholeheartedly support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. I believe we must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, I support a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to areas in and around NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in the State. Intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. We must require State and Industrial Development Agency funding to align with emission reduction strategies,including mobility-oriented development. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | There are four Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) mandates for the Climate Action Council that have been overlooked to this point. In brief those mandates are related to expertise, an implementation safety valve, costs and benefits documentation, and consideration of the experiences of other jurisdictions. Instead of focusing on specific technical issues, the Council should be considering how to address those mandates in their review of the Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Andrew,Caesar | L.U.#3, I.B.E.W. | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Andrew Caesar and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Fresh Meadows, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Andrew Caesar | |
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. I am concerned that some proposals to address long-term storage and peak demand involve using processes that emit GHG’s or are produced with significant embedded carbon. I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g., highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. It is important that local governments have more control through the use of siting tools. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use. Their production and use require a thorough evaluation to ensure that no additional harms are caused to disadvantaged communities and that no net GHG emissions result from their production and use. Furthermore, such alternatives are entirely unacceptable if they serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. | |
| Brian,Cardwell | Local Union #3 | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Brian Cardwell and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Middle Village, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Brian Cardwell | |
| Joseph,Magel | Local 3 IBEW | ||
| Craig ,Grazier | Not in favor of politics in social engineering. Common sense, reality based decisions effecting the “everyday “ family are what is needed. Not overreacting, overreaching and word salad “feel good” legislation. Not some overly “educated “ no real world experienced idiots dictating some grandiose ideas. Solar / wind ideas with no practical application may “work “ from a desk computer design , but when the rubber hits the road can’t replace natural resources that have worked for centuries. “Studies “ , numbers and statistics can be manipulated and managed to support ANY point of view or propaganda. | ||
| Thomas,Garavuso | Local Union #3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Thomas Garavuso and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Staten Island, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Thomas G | |
| Omari,Wilson | Local Union #3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Omari Wilson and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Bronx, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Omari Wilson | |
| Vincent,Cestra | Local 3 | ||
| Joseph ,Brandon | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Joseph Brandon and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Bronx , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Joseph Brandon | ||
| Chris,Donato | Local Union #3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Chris Donato and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Bronx, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including | |
| Christopher ,Erikson | Local 3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Christopher Erikson Jr and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Flushing, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW Sincerely, Chris | |
| Donald J,Brathwaite | Local Union #3 IBEW | ||
| Paul,Medici | I support the climate action plan. The scientific evidence is clear, anthropomorphic climate change is happening. The time for “Commonsense sense solutions that will not hurt the economy” has past. The long term economic dislocation will be far worse than doing nothing. | ||
| Sharon,Reynolds | As NY pushes to move off fossil fuels to electric dependency, one HAS to consider the real-life situation in Ulster Co, NY the weekend of Feb. 4, 2022. No power Fri. AM, temps in low 30s. All day, trees & branches fell due to significant ice storm. Temps dropped into teens & single digits Fri & Sat. Power outages grew to more than 50% of county out of power at peak. Homes, people, & animals got cold, no water, no way to heat food, & concerns about freezing pipes. Sooo cold! Power restored late Sun. afternoon & we began to warm up, concerned with bursting pipes, ate warm food, coffee/tea, & flushed toilets! Good timing since learned later that back-up generators to local cell towers were running out of propane – no cell service! Yikes! Many are fortunate to have woodstoves (many burning ash wood from trees killed by the Chinese invasive emerald ash borer so reusing resources), fireplaces, gas cooktops, grills, & generators. These were HUGE during this storm & allowed for patience as tree crews & power companies restored power. We lost power for 5 days each during hurricanes Irene & Sandy so losing power for multiple days is not a rare occurrence upstate. If no fossil fuels, it would not have been possible to heat water or food on a woodstove, gas cooktop or grill. The big one though, no generators! No boilers or furnaces for heat. No water pumps for drinking water, washing hands, toilets or showers. No lights and oh no!, no cell phone! No contact with anyone, no internet, & no idea what is happening locally or beyond! Batteries in electric vehicles do not fare well in frigid temperatures so not likely to drive to another location to get warm, water, hot coffee, food, or supplies. Only option: stay in a freezing home wrapped in blankets. Conservation begins with each person reducing fossil fuel AND electric use because we need both. Hypocrisy: the more money or power a person has, the bigger their talk, & the less conservation applies to them. | ||
| Suzanne,Crapser | Oswego Health Homecare | This scares me.......I put alot of miles on the road , in my car..... my office on wheels......trying to help the people in my community from ending up in the hospitals. This requires alot of miles. A night on call could mean a call from a sick 95 year old patient 36 miles away with no family near by who has not been able to urinate for several hours because their catheter is plugged and needs to be irrigated. The homecare nurse travels 36 miles to the patient to irrigate the catheter and relieve thier symptoms and 36miles back home. it could mean a call from a patients family reporting thier loved one is taking thier last breaths and needs the nurse to come. Could be 5 miles could be much more...... We drive all day and all night to help care for loved ones all over the county. Not only will this severely impact our jobs as community provider but our home lives. Some parents have kids in college who may be 100's of miles away and have a crisis and need their families. This is going to create huge problems not only financially but socially and emotionally. The mental health of our communities has already been seriously affected by the pandemic and this will make it so much worse. Please reconsider this | |
| Duane,Crapser | Oswego Health Home Care | As a home care nurse I drive much more than the average person. My job is to care for patients with many issues while in their home. This idea of taxing someone for miles they drive is completely wrong. The cost to living in NY is already to high and this will just push many more people to leave the state or the profession of nursing. | |
| Michael,Madden | We cannot afford half measures when it comes to climate change and transitioning New York to be environmentally friendly. | ||
| Sarah,Valvik | New Yorker’s can’t afford higher energy costs. Renewable energy isn’t where it needs to be to be cost effective. Solar panels are a waste of resources, can’t be recycled and the energy they produce can’t be stored long term. Other “green” energy sources are weather permitting, that’s not reliable. I pay more than double the energy I actually use on delivery charges and New York fees as of right now. The only way New York should be going is nuclear. It is clean and safe and would lower everyone energy bill. People can’t afford to get to work and feed their families now you want to raise our electric bills again. We can’t afford our bills now and to qualify for help you need to make a teenagers wage. If this moves forward NY needs to adjust the financial assistance thresholds. | ||
| Paul ,Gioia | New York State Reliability Council c/o Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP | These comments are submitted on behalf of the New York State Reliability Council (“NYSRC”) as requested by the Climate Action Council (CAC) and regarding the CAC’s Draft Scoping Plan. NYSRC Conclusions and Recommendations: NYSRC believes that the success of the CAC Draft Scoping Plan strategies depends upon: • Deployment of significant amounts of intermittent generation based on existing wind and solar technologies starting in 2025 and rapidly increasing in magnitude through 2050. • Deployment of unprecedented amounts of new Long-Term Battery Storage firm resources and Zero-Carbon firm resources and starting in 2025 and 2035 respectively, and rapidly increasing in magnitude to a total in excess of 44,000 MW through 2050. Much of this technology is still in the development or demonstration phases. • The timeliness of deployment of intermittent and new firm technology resources in the amounts and locations needed to meet CLCPA’s goals. Failure to achieve these deployments will require delays in the retirement of existing generation to prevent a degradation in the current reliability and resilience of the electric power system. • The reliability of new zero-carbon firm resources and long-term battery devices must be demonstrated. Recent outages of intermittent resources in California and Texas after routine transmission system disturbances have shown the importance of standards for the interconnection, protection and operation of these devices. • Recognition of the impact of extreme weather on resource requirements with a power system based upon intermittent resources. The National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) recently published a paper stressing the importance of resource adequacy modeling with more frequent extreme weather events in systems with high penetration of renewables. It is recommended that the proposed CAC strategy be reviewed for its practical application in the period 2025 to 2030. | |
| Daniel,Maher | Do you own or drive an SUV? The individuals pushing this movement to end carbon output strike me as bizarre in their approach. For the most part, my government's leadership is telling me what to do, but not doing it themselves. It makes me deeply suspicious. I believe in responsible stewardship of the world's resources. But until we analyze methods for disposition of expired batteries, I don't see how we can succeed. Now is probably a time to reevaluate tried and proven methods of using less fuel. Sales won't increase and profits will go down if we return to highly efficient sub-compact autos, but it will buy us the time necessary to complete a more sustainable solution. Until then. I am not on board. | ||
| Wendy ,Laahs | My family doesnt support your climate change agenda...using our money is not except able...I personally hope you lose at the ballot box. We will be paying attention | ||
| Brenda,Hanson | The goals of the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan are unnecessary and unreasonable. Attempts to force such goals on society will hurt human beings and diminish human flourishing. Renewable energy sources are low density, expensive, unreliable, intermittent, and environmentally damaging. Consider the amount of land necessary for wind and solar projects. Consider the rare earth mining required. Consider the dependence on foreign entities (often our competitors and adversaries - such as China) for rare earth metals. Consider the amount of energy necessary to construct, deliver, install, and decommission wind turbines and solar panels. Consider the environmental impact of disposing of toxic panels when they wear out. Fossil fuels, natural gas, and nuclear are high-density energy sources that are affordable and reliable. They cannot be replaced by renewables without a transition away from our modern culture toward a culture in which scarcity and brown-out/black-outs are commonplace. If human flourishing is the standard, then fossil fuels will be made readily available. If human flourishing is not the standard, then renewables will be pushed. If decreasing carbon emissions is the standard, then nuclear would be on the table. Since it is not, I can only assume that carbon emissions are not the primary concern. What then is? In addition, unelected officials should not have the power you have to change the lives we live. It is unconscionable. | ||
| Lewis,Dubuque | National Waste & Recycling Association | Please find enclosed the Public Comments of the National Waste & Recycling Association as well as the technical paper for more analysis. | has attachment |
| Jerry & Vicki,Albanese | Indian Brook Properties | Attempting to use renewable and natural energy sources to reliably generate electricity at this time is a fool's mission. You are well aware that it is not possible to generate electricity for all of your NYS residents currently. Stop the sham! We are decades away from that point. Without petroleum products it would be impossible to live today's lifestyle. You should focus your efforts on buying petroleum for the cheapest price. | |
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting to today is because like many New Yorkers, our family suffers from the effects of burning fossil fuels. My daughter suffers from asthma and both my husband and I have suffered from heart disease. Quoting the Scoping Plan: "In all scenarios, air quality improvements can avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths, thousands of non-fatal heart attacks, thousands of other hospitalizations, thousands of asthma-related emergency room visits, and hundreds of thousands of lost work days." (Scoping Plan, p. 86). $50 - $120 billion in savings between 2020 and 2050 due to air quality improvements and impacts on health, alone. (ibid., p. 85) Asthma prompted our family to switch to Geothermal heating and it works. The technology is here and each year it will get even better. In New York State Industry is not our biggest source of pollution. However, we must reduce our emissions in all sectors by using new technology. The final scoping plan must promote climate and environmental justice, as a part of business development. Industrial should be electrified wherever feasible. Reliance on green hydrogen must be limited. The sector must omit any reliance on carbon capture and sequestration, (CCS) which is not a true zero-emissions measure. The final plan needs a permanent moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining. Even if such mining uses renewable energy, they undermine our climate goals. Renewable energy is needed to replace the burning of fossil fuel in other sectors of economy. Also, Cryptocurrency is more of a Ponzi scheme than an investment. When it fails, the owners will likely to be insolvent. Taxpayers will pay for decommissioning. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards. Implement the CLCPA targets without distractions by the multi-million-dollar campaign of misinformation from the fossil fuel companies. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | The Gas System Transition section mentions replacing leaking natural gas lines. This should be a high priority, but ending the use of gas is an even better response to leaky pipes. The draft plan, on page 267, recommends "progress be prioritized in Disadvantaged Communities, where co-pollutants pose a high cumulative burden". Unless there is solid evidence of co-pollutants in a community, the areas with the most methane emissions should be prioritized. Since most of the effects of methane leaks are global, the biggest leaks should be plugged first. Also on page 267, shifting gas usage away from peak consumption times is discussed. Perhaps I don't understand something, but we want to reduce the overall amount of gas burned - I don't see what difference it makes when it is burned. I agree we need to seal leaky buildings to conserve energy, but we also need to consider the impact on indoor air quality. Radon is one issue; furniture, carpeting, and other products that discharge various fumes are another. This is a detail but I believe it is important. I absolutely agree with reducing "upstream from the meter" emissions, and the steps listed on page 270 to do so. However, on page 271, I believe it's more important to cap leaking abandoned wells quickly than to spend years chasing funding. The state should fund the capping of abandoned wells which are leaking methane or other greenhouse gasses. If the owners can be found, then we should try to recoup the costs. But the most important thing is to stop the emissions. | ||
| Kent ,Manuel | Delaware County Planning Board | ||
| Andrew,Johnson | As an Electrical lineman that works on the current grid I see many oversteps taking place. If you think replacing natural gas with electricity is the best solution I would strongly recommend you ride along with myself and partner as a crew and we will show you how bad the current infrastructure is in just the city of Buffalo! | ||
| Leo,Wiegman | Sustainable Westchester Inc | Regarding E3. Facilitate Distributed Generation / Distributed Energy Resources, I strongly support making the process by which an applicant for eligibility for the Inclusive Community Solar Adder as simple and easy as possible. The self-attestation path is very difficult to achieve with any scale for low- to moderate income households. To incentivize developers to build more capacity that can deliver benefits to LMI, EJA, DEC areas, a geographically verifiable method must be approved that obviates the individual attestations. To date, there is a no specificity on that a geo-coded method might entail. Our organization is proposing one method to NYSERDA, that could be a model for adoption by others. Without reasonably assured access to the ICSA, developers will flip projects from community solar to remote crediting. Indeed, we have already seen that happen. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | This comment addresses the use of hydrogen in some form or other as the Draft Scoping Plan placeholder technology for the Zero-Carbon Firm Resource or Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) generally accepted as a complementary requirement when intermittent resources like wind and solar make up a significant portion of the electric grid resource mix. The worst-case renewable availability period is expected to occur in the winter because solar resource availability is low because of the season, Great Lakes induced cloudiness, and the potential for snow on solar panels when there is a wind lull reducing that resource availability. This is the particular period when the zero-carbon firm resource will be needed most. The problem is exacerbated because those conditions are typically associated with the coldest weather of the year. When the state’s heating and transportation systems convert to electricity the expectation is that maximum loads will occur during those periods. These comments describe many implementation issues associated with using hydrogen for the zero-carbon firm resource not the least of which is using mostly solar PV as a dedicated source of the electrolyzer power. I conclude that a feasibility analysis that address the questions raised is necessary. Even better would be a demonstration project at large scale to show how a hydrogen-based power system would work and how much it would cost after including all of the extras and current unknowns not just for producing it but also for transporting it and handling it safely. | |
| James,Polson | Customer of Central Hudson | Folks, I generally support the state's scoping plan. It poses a broad, deep and comprehensive effort to reduce New York's greenhouse gas emissions,vased solidly against the risk of inaction. I categorically oppose the "Key Principles" distributed as comment by Central Hudson to its customers, as it advocates renewed construction of nuclear and fossil fuel plants, especially those fueled by natural gas, discourages sensible electification, and, in fact, discourages any climate-related action by the state of New York. It does call for more R&D--but in a "fig leaf" manner. (For reference, the Central Hudson "principles" http://archive.mailengine1.com/csb/Public/show/fdwk-2jqnlo--zqca2-h8kv4fy9 ) I would only add that, as under investigation by the Department of Public Service, Central Hudson's recent billing procedures have seriously impeded the development of in-state renewable energy resources--whether intentional or not. Central Hudson adopted a billing system that was completely inept at accounting for community solar generation. This misguided policy persisted for many months, and I can't tell from my bills whether it has been resolved. In my opinion, Central Hudson has forfeited the opportunity to be trusted or heeded on the matter of state climate policy. Best regards, Jim Polson Bearsville, New York | |
| Shelly,Johnson-Bennett | Delaware County | ||
| Arlo,Bodden | Local 3 IBEW | ||
| Patrick,Kennedy | Local #3 IBEW | ||
| Jason,Neese | Global warming or as you call it now “climate change” is not an emergency. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this. | ||
| Bruce,Lewis | This plan is terrible for all NY residents. we are strugling right now with inflation and all associated costs. elecitric cost are already super high and you want us to pay more. i will vote against any representative who votes for this. | ||
| Henry,Soderlund | Local#3 IBEW | It is the utmost of importance to transition off of fossil fuels and continue to transition to green technologies as quickly as possible. Keeping in mind that it needs to be done with keeping 3 factors in mind while doing so. 1. Keeping collective bargaining in mind first and foremost with these jobs. 2. Approved apprenticeships for these jobs. So we receive the highly skilled highly trained members of the community employed and receive quality workmanship for these projects. 3. Project labor agreements. To keep the jobs done on time and quality assured while completing these projects. | |
| Robert,Cohen | I live in the Catskills in a rural area. Our entire county and the counties surrounding it have very unreliable electric service which is unlikely to improve. There are hundreds of miles of lines surrounded by huge trees. I do have a high efficiency mini split system, which I can use to supplement my oil hydronic system to reduce my fuel use. I also have a LP generator which is a necessity up here. The ice storm this year caused a power outage that lasted 3 days. My home would have frozen solid without it. The cost of installing a geo heat pump system would be totally unaffordable($50kplus!). I also do not want to be stuck with a loan, even if it is zero interest. Also I would need to install a larger generator and LP tank or out in a huge battery system that would be prohibitive if it where to have a 4 to 5 day capability. We do need to reduce carbon emissions but we should panic and make stupid decisions that would put us in a dangerous situation. I should add that when I lived in NJ and Sandy hit, electricity w2as out for 10 days. The gas was uninterrupted during that time. I was able to run my furnace off an inverter and keep warm. Centralized electric transmission is inherently unreliable. Please be smart and not hysterical about this. The war in Ukraine should be a wake up call as well. We need to get off fossil fuel where we can, but not set ourselves up for a catastrophe . Wind and solar are a great alternative, But decentralize it on private homes and commercial rooftops etc so as not to create yet another foreign owned for profit monopoly. Do not cut us off from oil and gas before we are ready | ||
| Jonathan,Hitchcock | Moving New York State away from natural gas, heating oil, wood, etc. and to 100 percent electric heat for residences, business, and other buildings would be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. Severe winter storms, including wind, ice, and snow can knock out power for days, or even weeks at a time. The North Country Ice Storm of January 1998 brought near complete destruction of the power grid in northern New York, and some were without power for nearly a month in the heart of winter. Moving to 100 percent electric heat would put countless lives in danger during extreme weather events. Gas and natural gas powered generators provide necessary backup power so that natural gas furnaces can still operate during a power outage. 100 percent electrification would remove those safeguards. | ||
| Sean,Lally | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Sean Lally and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Massapequa Park, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to hear out those impacted by this plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. I agree that the time to act is now, to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think that this plan is the way to reach the goals necessary to do so. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have an unfortunate impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities in which they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants throughout the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural Gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long term storage, renewable natural gas and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Increased cost to convert homes and businesses from natural gas to electric energy. The estimates show a cost between 20,000 and 50,000 dollars for a single-family home. We are seeing record inflation, and NYers already bear a high cost of living. Exact information and costing should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes being made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on r | ||
| Jamesq,Wheaton | Stop the f----- stupidity. This lunacy will insure that people must leave NYS to escape this complete and utter stupidity. | ||
| Joanne,Seefeldt | This plan should NOT be implemented. Natural gas is a clean safe source of heat in New York State. It is also cost efficient. Many New Yorkers rely on natural gas to heat their homes. Do NOT eliminate natural gas as an energy source in New York State. | ||
| Pamela,Krimsky | New York State should be leading the nation in transitioning quickly and effectively from fossil fuels and nuclear power to renewable energy sources. Large Federal and State investments must be made by the government now and may I suggest, that the government should work on building many geothermal plants, because in the long run, these plants will provide efficient production, last a long time and provide many jobs. This is not the job of individuals. Because we have already stalled far too long, we are experiencing ever increasing problems with our climate. The faster fossil fuels and nuclear power are removed from the equation, the faster our environment will be able to heal. It is not the job of privately owned energy corporations, working for profit:their job is making profits. The monopolies put in place where even foreign corporations are providing power to huge areas of our State, clearing trees and overcharging for their "services" is incorrect. We do not need privately operated and huge foreign corporations running our energy supplies. We need to know how to do this ourselves and this must be a function on government, NOT private, profit-making corporations. | ||
| Albert ,Boera | To whom this may concern The time to act is now on climate change. We should not just act for the sake of the planet but also the future of mankind. We should use every resource to achieve this. The benefits far outweigh the risk. This will be a huge plus for the New York economy. Let’s get it done Sincerely yours Albert boera | ||
| Dillon,Batista | With all of the problems plaguing NYS. Crime, infrastructure, education, and inflation. This government is hell bent on going green. What does that means for the working JOE. What are you replacing fossil fuels with? Clean Nuclear Energy? Nope. Can solar or wind replace what you are demolishing? Nope. Clean efficient coal? Nope. This is all a pipe dream. Just look at what is happening now. Washington wants you to go green by making gas terribly expensive for the working class. Some people can't afford to drive to work. The only thing all of these is going to accomplish, is the destruction of the middle class and turning this country into a third world hell hole. You either have no clue or this is all by design. PS. the seas are rising according to the climate fanatics, yet Obama has a house right by the ocean. We are not that stupid. | ||
| Beth ,Jacobs | I am pro clean air water and lan but your plan only helps the rich.Electric cars are not reliable dangerous when on fire(I am a former volunteer firefighter) and to expensive for any one but the upper class. Electric vehicles,windmills,and solar panels are filthy to make and filthy to dispose of as are the vehicle batteries. And their life is only 20 or so years. Driving tax only hurts the poor I assume you are backed by big green and for profit prisons because your plan will put money in rich people's pockets and send poor people (women and minorities and yes thier kids) to jail and phychiatric wards. | ||
| Michael,Loreto | Local Union #3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Michael Loreto and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Harrison , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to hear out those impacted by this plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. I agree that the time to act is now, to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think that this plan is the way to reach the goals necessary to do so. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have an unfortunate impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities in which they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants throughout the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural Gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long term storage, renewable natural gas and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Increased cost to convert homes and businesses from natural gas to electric energy. The estimates show a cost between 20,000 and 50,000 dollars for a single-family home. We are seeing record inflation, and NYers already bear a high cost of living. Exact information and costing should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes being made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on rem | |
| Jerry,Salamone | Salamone | Enable the efficient, profitable production of domestic natural gas using the best available technologies while continuously improving environmental safety and protection. Do the same for domestic oil. Develop a long term, market oriented plan to increase nuclear energy production using new and developing technologies to ensure that increasing base load electricity demand will be met in the future. Continue providing common sense, market based, incentives for renewable energy production and technological development to the extent practicable. Accept the undeniable FACT that renewable energy will NEVER fully satisfy our future energy needs. | |
| Erin,Sullivan | Local 3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Erin Sullivan and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Congers, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to hear out those impacted by this plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. I agree that the time to act is now, to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think that this plan is the way to reach the goals necessary to do so. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have an unfortunate impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities in which they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants throughout the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural Gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long term storage, renewable natural gas and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. Sincerely, Erin Sullivan | |
| HAROLD,SUITOR | RETIRED | Natural gas is the most economical fuel & cleanest burning. The plan to remove it & go to electricity is mindless & ridiculous at least. There is not enough electricity or infrastructure to support such a change. To refuse gas to new homes & buildings with the way they are insulated is arsine. The natural gas system in NYS can easily support all new construction & the pipeline system is quite capable of supporting it. Where are the regular people going to get $50,000 or more to buy an electric vehicle? Common sense dictates that this plan is fraught with insurmontable problems | |
| John,Golde | Golde Engineering, P.C. | If NYS is serious tell the PSC that they should act to promote it. We installed PV on our garage in 2008. Yes, we received incentives from NYS 14 years ago, but according to a recent PSC we cannot participate in community solar because we have PV behind the meter. If it weren't for early supporters of PV the industry would not be where it is today. We probably just broke even on our PV investment and we still pay over $300 a month in electric bills. There is absolutely no reasonable reason why we cannot participate in community solar. I find the PSC decision completely out of touch with the purported NYS policy. we are not going to get where we need to get if governments like NYS make excuses for not allowing NYS residents to participate in alternate energy programs to the greatest degree possible. Otherwise, I fully support the climate action initiative. John M. Golde | |
| Heidi,Tucci | Bravo to all initiatives that make NY a "greener" state to live in! We must do whatever it takes, as quickly as we can! | ||
| John,Sherman | I do not want to loose my gas appliances. I do not want to be dependent just on electricity. This is the dumbest plan I have heard of .The Grid is not ready to handle this and I need 2 forms of heat in the winter. John Sherman | ||
| Kevin,Hoffman | Your plan to eliminate Natural Gas as a energy source is not feasible and punitive to the residents of NY. We do not produce enough electricity to meet the demands for this plan to work nor could we afford to. Natural gas is the primary energy source for heating our homes, heating water, cooking. New Yorkers use natural gas for the simple fact it is nearly 3 times less in cost. It is not only economical it takes less energy to supply and distribute this energy source versus electricity. I dont know of anyone who can afford to heat there homes with anything else but natural gas. I look forward to your response and explanation of how and where all this electricity is coming from and how anyone could afford it. | ||
| Debra,Dawson | Concerned citizen | You are making this very hard on regular people. Hard to comment, hard to say no and certainly NOT transparent. We the people would say - please don’t do this but you are making it hard to know the level to which we will be effected. I’m the rare example who dug deep, regular people don’t even know you are doing these things. NY cannot save the world and end global warming. We are one state in competition with 49 other states who will allow the use of fossil fuels. I want to see carbon emissions lowered and common sense policies throughout the globe but these new policies are going to hurt NY, and still won’t make enough difference to save the planet. That’s a loose loose proposition. Let’s lead the way in innovation, let’s help make it easier for regular families to go green, let’s incentivize and subsidize and mobilize. We can have goals and we can set an example but the current plans will force more business out of NY. These policies will force more families to pay higher costs and will further increase the exodus from the state. Leadership isn’t forcing the people to follow, leadership is lighting the way so the people can find the path. | |
| Anita M,Collins | USDA, Agricultural Research Service, retired | ||
| ryan,whitaker | This plan will not work plain and simple. Electricity is not reliable enough to power all the things that are proposed in this plan. The grid will be overtaxed and you will be giving a near monopoly to the power companies. If this passes, the number of people leaving NY will drastically increase and this state will be turned to ruin. I DO NOT support this bill. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act Scoping Plan claims that “The cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $90 billion”. However, the benefit claims are poorly documented, misleading and the largest benefit is dependent upon an incorrect application of the value of carbon. These comments address the Scoping Plan benefit claims and explain how the value of carbon is used incorrectly. The Scoping Plan claims net benefits range from $90 billion to $120 billion. The Plan describes health benefits totaling $165 to $170 billion due to improvements in air quality, increased active transportation ($39.5 billion), and energy efficiency interventions in LMI homes ($8.7 billion). The benefit claims are not documented well enough to confirm those estimates but they appear to be biased high. The claimed benefits for the avoided cost of GHG emissions range between $235 and $250 billion. However, Climate Act guidance incorrectly calculates avoided GHG emissions benefits by applying the value of an emission reduction multiple times. If the multiple-counting error is corrected, the avoided carbon damage benefits range from negative $74.5 to negative $49.5 billion. These errors should be corrected in the Final Scoping Plan. | |
| Mrk,Runnels | As a New York state resident, I just learned about this plan on Tuesday 21, 2022. It will take me a minimum of three months to review the breadth and scope of data and information. Hence the public comment period is insufficient for independent residents like myself to digest, reflect upon and contribute constructive comments. Without sufficient time to review this material, I will be forced to disregard any actions taken by New York state on the study recommendations. And without public support the recommendations will fall on deaf ears. | ||
| Scott,Lauffer | Resident | ||
| Francis,DiPrimo | I believe climate change is real. I believe we need to do things to reduce emissions. But any proposal of forcing all New Yorkers to transition to heat pumps, electricity only for homes and businesses, electric cars by tax penalties is not the way to get this done. I cannot believe that this state legislature which is all about caring for the underprivileged black and brown communities and who constantly reminds all of us how impoverished and in equatable they are would impose monetary penalties on them! NYS overtaxed us enough. A per mile tax for cars is absurd. Here in Western NY we depend on cars to get to work. We do not have effective mass transit as NYC does. This tax especially will kill the food and goods industries in NYS among others. Lots of parts of this plan can happen, but the energy infrastructure and technology is not yet there. Be realistic about your time lines and plans, and heavily consult with energy and tech experts. No penalty taxes. We are loosing many residents to other states already thanks to overtaxation. | ||
| Douglas,EDmond | I do not feel that we should be cutting down or eliminating natural gas heating, hot water production, or for any other use. Natural gas is abundant in this country and a clean source of energy. We should encourage natural gas production and use it in this country instead of exporting to other countries. I do feel electric vehicles are not universally a good idea especially in rural areas. Electric rates keep climbing and I do not think it is wise to depend more on electrical in this country. | ||
| Richard,Simonetti | While I am all for reduction of carbon footprint and steps toward net zero energy, I do not think eliminating natural gas appliances is the correct way to go about it. Natural gas is a low cost energy that many WNY homes are already outfitted for. I believe the carbon cost of replacing all the appliances, infrastructure, and disposal of said appliances will far outweigh the benefit of switching to all electric appliances for the sole purpose of a feel good policy. Also, gasoline burning vehicles will always have a place on the roads as many people do not have time to wait for a vehicle to charge when traveling long distance for work or recreation. Electric cars would be great for some families, but will not be a good fit for others. Offer tax breaks or rebates to get electric vehicles, but do not outlaw the gasoline engine. | ||
| Anne,Brueckner | The CAC and associated working groups, panels, and staff have done a terrific job in getting us to this point with a draft plan. Special thanks for viewing issues in an economy-wide context. Quite a challenge lies ahead of us. CARBON PriCING is my #1 priority: Well-grounded, knowledgeable economists agree that the most fundamental move toward reducing GHG emissions is to put a price on carbon. As a pricing mechanism, charging a fee to fossil fuel producers and redistributing the collected fees as a ‘dividend’ to all households (and perhaps to certain businesses) would promote a fair sharing of the resulting impact on higher energy costs. Carbon fees with a returned dividend work especially well to assuage the effect of resulting higher energy prices on low and middle income households, in line with Disadvantaged Community goals. Well-crafted carbon pricing policy provides pricing certainty. The carbon price, low at the start, should rise gradually each year as we transition to cleaner energy sources. When done properly, carbon pricing as a market-driven mechanism offers a fair, predictable way for businesses to adjust and adapt to the evolving energy environment. And with RGGI we must be sure that carbon pricing applies to more than the electricity sector if we are to move ahead in a timely manner on priorities like building (heat pumps) and vehicle electrification. We can’t risk having electricity costs driving users to other fossil fuel sectors because of pricing hitting the electricity sector inordinately compared to other fossil fuel sectors. | ||
| David,Lombardi | Listen, you can do whatever to eliminate fossil fuel. Gee like the president with high gas prices. But bottom line is the cost better not increase. So you have some work ahead of you | ||
| Jessica ,Toll | Kinder Morgan, Inc. | Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s comments are provided in the attached document. | has attachment |
| Rhiannon,Wright | Center for Agricultural Development a nd Entrepreneurship | CADE urges NYSERDA to consider American Farmland Trust’s Smart Solar Siting mitigation framework, including putting into place a fee system that penalizes developers for building on prime farmland. As one of the only sectors that has the power to pull carbon from the atmosphere, it is imperative that farmers and farmland are lifted up through the CLCPA. Young farmers who lease their land are especially at risk to losing their livelihoods to solar development. It is imperative that aging farmers (especially dairy farmers) are offered assistance with creating transition plans that allow their land to stay in production rather than being auctioned off to the highest bidder. NYSERDA should also incentivize, streamline, and accelerate approvals for siting on rooftops, disturbed areas, and marginal lands. In addition to the preservation of farmland, it is critical that solar developers to NOT clear cut forests to install solar panels. The lifetime potential of carbon sequestration of a forest (whether mature or not) is significant, and dwarfs the potential benefits of a solar project with a limited lifespan. We are strong supporters of renewable energy, and know that siting on rural lands is inevitable. However, we do ourselves and future generations no services by destroying farmland and forests that are well-equipped to feed our communities and naturally sequester carbon. The urgency to transform the grid to renewables is warranted, but it is NYSERDA’s responsibility to ensure that common sense and foresight are not sacrificed in order to meet these ambitious goals. | |
| Jaime,Paratore | I wholly disagree with the proposed plan for green energy in NYS, these sweeping changes would cripple an already struggling economy. It would put undo hardship on the agriculture industry which cannot produce crops and animals solely on electric power. The acres and acres already lost to agricultural producers due to “solar farms” will have a devastating effect when we can no longer grow enough crops to support people and animals alike. Please understand I do believe finding ways to ease our carbon footprint is important, however doing so at the expense of our land is not acceptable. Solar panels pollute the landscape and make soils beneath useless. What will happen when these panels are no longer functional? Will they be removed at the tax payer’s expense? Will they be abandoned? Landfills can’t take them, and would we really want them to? I respectfully ask that you not proceed with these plans as written and instead work with the people of NY on a regional basis rather than sweeping reforms that do not meet the needs of rural areas. Put solar on stores, apartment buildings, strip malls, these would make more sense as well as provide power closer to its intended recipients. As a rural homeowner, our utility bill has only increased over the past several years and yet we have several large solar farms within walking distance. I appreciate your time and consideration, Jaime Paratore | ||
| Mark,Lalloo | I support New York state effort to improve the climate and reduce carbon emission. I want any and all government funded work for climate improvement to be preform at the prevailing wage. Thank you | ||
| Jean,Morgan | I am opposed to going all electric. I fail to see how this is anymore environmentally friendly. From turbines that kill the wildlife to coal to nuclear; please explain how any of those are more environmentally friendly. Then explain to me how, living in a rural area with little to no mass transit system and living in the northeast (65 miles south of Buffalo,) I am to use an electric car that uses more electric when I heat the car and will not run as long as a car for someone in the South. Explain to me please how you will not put taxes for roads and such on my electric bill and how you will separate the electric I use to charge my car versus the electric I use for my household; inquiring minds wish to know. I am diametrically opposed to going to all electric. Natural gas and synthetic fuel should be the focus. | ||
| Colleen,karabinos | I agree we should aim for cleaner energy but this is being done too fast. We are not prepared. Currently so many of us cannot afford these changes and are not living in a situation where we have access to chrg we our vehicles. We need to drill here in the us while we continue to move towards renewables. Those who don't have to worry about money don't have any idea what life is like for working class america. | ||
| Jerry,McAneney | If we are trying to eliminate our carbon foot print, why does Steuben rural electric not promote solar energy? They charge more per kw than most suppliers in NYS. They are not a member of nyserda. Out of 6000 members, only 9 members have alternative energy. They do not do net metering, why? I would like to install solar power on my property but it would be COST prohibitive. Sincerely, Jerry McAneney | ||
| Michael,Mager | Multiple Intervenors | ||
| T,R | I am not in agreement with this blanket plan. One size does not fit all, and all or nothing plans in the past have proven unsuccessful. This feels like an agenda to control and to lock everyone in the same box. This proposal is foolhardy and cost prohibitive. I genuinely request this proposal be turned down. | ||
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project, Divest NY, NR DC | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades I would like to address Chapter 6 & 7: Achieving Climate Justice and Just Transition. Unfortunately, for generations many New Yorkers have lived in communities where pollution is rampant and they have worked hazardous jobs. The CLCPA has set forth that 40% of funding to transition to a clean economy be used to benefit these folks. The Scoping Plan needs to adhere to this plan. Perhaps, establishing a department at the governor's office to insure this just transition would be advisable. Giving all New Yorkers access to clean energy and a clean environment is paramount. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Abigail,Sindzinski | The CLCPA scoping document provides an important and appreciated outline of the steps the state needs to take to meet its climate goals. Thank you for this important document. I appreciate the attention in many places to detailed implementation plans. I have specifically been looking at the area of heat pumps and heat pump implementation in view of their cost, and getting them in urban areas with many current multifamily residential buildings. The CLCPA scoping document offers important recommendations in this area. In looking at heat pump incentives, I would specifically encourage NYSERDA/the state to offer “point of sale” rebates that provide incentives/subsidies when one buys a unit, rather than retroactively, as the Center for American Progress suggests in its report on this subject. These incentives should focus especially on serving disadvantaged communities. The heat pump program should also be built to provide incentives for building upgrades. This aspect will help would-be buyers with the actual cost of getting a heat pump(s) in their buildings/units. Finally, the program should look at specifically incentivizing landlords, who have no reason to make a switch that, financially speaking, most immediately benefits the renters in their building. The cost of heat pumps, coupled with required upgrades to use them, presents a challenge. In NYC and other urban or multifamily areas, where decisions about buildings often need to made collectively, it might be especially hard to make this transition. Hoping that people will simply buy these units and later be reimbursed, and pay for the upgrades across their building or distribute that cost among owners, is a challenge, and one that cuts especially across socioeconomic lines and disadvantaged communities. Offering the incentives upfront and helping with residential building upgrades should help with this transition and provide the kind of incentive NYSERDA is seeking to offer: one that gets people to buy heat pumps. | ||
| Wayne,Johnson | Climate pseudo "Science" is at best a friendly way to launder money into "green" companies and at worst, a way to destroy the wealth of the populace in 1st world countries. I'm not even into Chapter 1 and we get “Disadvantaged Communities” carve outs for particular groups of people. The entire paper begins in a dishonest way. People are leaving New York. It is a dying state. You cannot simply destroy industry because some a politician believes in a zero emissions planet. This entire plan was created by people with IQs that are far and away below average. This is from the mind of a ill-child. • 85% Reduction in GHG Emissions by 2050 - How? You will make gas illegal? • 100% Zero-Emission Electricity by 2040 - How? You are going to force everyone to either, be broke, or drill massive holes in their roof for inefficient solar panels? • 70% Renewable Energy by 2030 - And what happens on a cloudy day? We all lose power? • 9,000 MW of Offshore Wind by 2035 - Well that seems like an easy target in a state of war. Or terrorism. Very smart... /s • 3,000 MW of Energy Storage by 2030 - Great job, energy storage. All those materials used to store solar energy. What about a SINGLE nuclear power plant? • 6,000 MW of Solar by 2025 - A+ great. • 185 trillion Btu of end-use energy savings - All this and no measurable difference in climate here, because there never will be any measurable difference. A never-ending "war on climate", "war on drugs" , "war on terror", for $$$. Why am I even wasting my time reading this? Because my electric company is worried. That's why, but the truth is, doing these things is going to bring about far more unrest than can be imagined. You import aliens into NEW YORK, YOU take away NYC for the Pandemic, now you are pricing them out of the economy. You are very sick people. We are all waiting for the place to burn to the ground. The empire is collapsing and people that drive these things, are the reason why. You are the reason why. | ||
| Ed ,Perry | 1. Remove all regulations that impede home owners from installing their own solar affordably. Remove the Ulster County electricians license regulations and allow home owners to return to hiring an electrical inspection service and installing their own work so long as it passes inspections. 2. allow home owners to install their own solar and receive all the same discounts, rebates, benefits as if they hired a solar panel licensed installer 3. require all electrical companies to buy back all residential solar generation at the same rates it is sold to them and the tax as well. Prohibit charging more for meters or other fees. Look at the electrical code and amend the wiring and system design to return to a single main automatic disconnect contactor/relay that protects workers from the grid but allows the home to continue using their solar or + battery power. 4. prohibit local ordinances from preventing property owners both res and comm from installing solar 5. Teach local officials how to "Make solar happen" instead of finding ways to impede solar adoption. Require their local experience and staff PE get involved to find a way to make it work and keep the costs of adoption to a minimum by using boilerplate designs that are pre approved and simple | ||
| Geraldine,Minerd | We truly and desperately need specific outreach aimed at correcting misinformation of the Scoping Plan! Trusted officials or community members need to be seen and heard debunking the false information which is being promoted. Though specifics of correcting this false info could vary depending on the audience, the main message should be that the scoping plan will save money at both the household level and the state level - and that more good jobs would be created. Different messages for different audiences could stress the health benefits, the lowering of transportation costs through more efficient , clean transportation - and the lowering of heating & cooling cost through geothermal heat pumps. We know that this bill is crucial to combat our damaged climate and will provide numerous benefits to the citizens of New York State. It's crucial that our citizens understand this! Presently, it's NOT clear that they do - and the Climate Act will not succeed unless this changes! I implore you to act on this. Thank You! | ||
| Larry,Fischer | Forcing people to abandon / scrap there existing heating systems is wrong! I have a gas fired boiler running at 93% efficiency. The boiler produces hot water for my baseboard heat. Heat Pumps need ducting, or installation in each room, and under 40 degrees they are in efficient, and rely on the most most inefficient way to make heat through coils, similar to a stove or toaster. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THESE PLANS. The cost to each homeowner will be tremendous, and those of us who are retired and on a fixed income will not be able to burden these expenses. | ||
| xxxxx,yyyyyyy | Until you have in place the alternate capability i.e. solar and wind capability to match todays demands nothing should be done. As you drive up the prices you are hurting the citizens directly and via jobs that will remain in the state of New York State. Where is the SEQRA analysis and documentation that show there will be minimum impact on people's life and the ability for rural New Yorkers to remain in the state. | ||
| Bryan,Grimaldi | National Grid | ||
| Deborah,Gondek | After thoroughly reviewing the draft scoping plan, Scenario 3 appears to be the best combination of realistic implementation and leadership to address climate change. It addresses both greenhouse gas mitigation and climiate resilience. I support the renewable energy sources in the plan; however, I have serious concerns about increased nuclear power -- due to the risks, especially long-term management of nuclear waste. Also, I didn't see any reference to cryptocurrency mining in the draft plan. I respectfully submit that the revised plan include a ban on proof-of-work crypto mining, due to its enormous amount of energy consumption and the increased electronic waste generated from computers running 24/7 to solve complex mathematical problems inherent in blockchain. There are other forms of cryptocurrency mining that are much less energy intensive -- such a "proof-of-stake" which requires 99% less energy than bitcoin. In order for they NYS climate plan to be successful, we must consider not only sources of energy but the quantity of energy use as well. A ban on energy-intensive industries which benefit a few at the expense of the public good should be part of any scenario which is selected to move forward. Public reporting on progress being made against the benchmarks will raise awareness and help individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and government agencies understand the role they play in achieving carbon reduction and other climate goals. Annual reporting on all metrics, with quarterly updates as feasible, would be ideal. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft scoping plan. Sincerely, Deborah Gondek | ||
| Laurie,Poltynski | National Grid | ||
| Don,Chahbazpour | National Grid | ||
| Ken ,Kujawa | National Grid | ||
| Phil,DeCicco | National Grid | ||
| Brian ,Gemmell | National Grid | ||
| Alberto ,Bianchetti | National Grid | ||
| Carlos ,Gavilondo | |||
| Brian ,Sano | National Grid | ||
| Anntonette ,Alberti | National Grid | ||
| Henry,Smedley | I am concerned that the transition away from and defunding of fossil fuels and associated infrastructure is proceeding too rapidly. It is apparent that fossil fuels are still going to be needed during this important transition to a new electrical infastructure. The existing electrical grid is going to be very stressed by this increased demand. Solar and wind are intermittent and execution appears to be facing community opposition based on other environmental concerns. This slows the process of implementing new solar field locations. Let's remain calm and be sure that what we are replacing fossil fuels with is really up to the task. I, for one, am not yet convinced of this and have no desire to "sit freezing in the dark" in the coming years. | ||
| Susan H,Gillespie | Citizens for Local Power | ||
| Katherina,Contini | In as much as I support Climate Friendly Clean Energy I dont support the rush to solutions. Real solutions will take time. Rushing to meet some Politically motivated Agenda will be disasterous. We already feel the pain of the rush to the Agenda in our Electric and Gasoline bills. All solutions need to be examined including safe Nuclear. The first step is to insure the Grid can handle the changes, currently not by a long shot. Brown outs, black outs and astronomical electric bills are not an option. Forcing people to change to more expensive home heating/cooling and modes of transportation is also not an option. | ||
| Katie,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby-Rochester | During the course of the comment period for the draft scoping plan, it has become apparent that there is a need for specific outreach aimed at correcting misinformation regarding the provisions of the plan. The campaign could be similar to the one mounted for Covid, in which trusted officials or community members speak to the false information which has arisen, and occasionally deliberately circulated. Although the specifics could vary depending on the audience, the prevailing message would be that the scoping plan will save money in the long run, both at the household level and at the state level; and that more jobs would be created than destroyed. Different messaging for different audiences could stress the health benefits, the lowering of transportation costs through more energy efficient, clean transportation, the lowering of heating and cooling costs (albeit long term through geothermal heat pumps), the lowering of electricity costs through solar panel installations, and grid resilience through battery installs. Those of us who have been paying attention know that these actions are not only crucial to combat global warming, but will provide many benefits to the population of New York State. We need to make sure that our citizens understand this. As of now, it is not clear that they do, and the Climate Act will not succeed unless this changes. | |
| Paul,Hraska | Retired | I support the completion of the Champlain Hudson Power Express even though I've been a strong supporter of what Riverkeeper has done to protect the Hudson and our environment. With the (thankfully) closure of Indian Point, it is critical that clean power be available to the residents of New York. I would also ask that New York State start offering tax credits for battery backup systems when they are installed in residential homes. Thank you. | |
| Josh,Makatura | - Rural areas cannot afford to buy all new appliances, farm equipment, and vehicles just because NYC wants to go electric. These are the people that are barely scraping by with what they've got. - Jacking up registration fees to force them to get rid of their vehicles is will disproportionately affect the heart of upstate NY. We cannot afford this. - Farmers cannot afford any of the new tractors that are out there - ours are all 40+ years old. The new equipment isn't reliable enough and is way too expensive. - Organic farming is less productive than normal farming - fertilizer is necessary to maximize yields and grow crops more efficiently. Higher yield means less time on the tractor per bushel. - The electrical grid in upstate NY is barely fit for the power loads as it is - power lines need to be buried so that there are less outtages. The massive reforestation in the last 100 years has grown up around all of the rural power lines and branches constantly take them down. - I see nothing in this plan pertaining to motorsports. This is and will continue to be a close-to-home issue to many people. This is a huge industry that supports many many businesses and needs to be left alone and preserved. - I heat my home with a woodstove and will continue to. My family uses home heating oil. A small generator can support either of these furnaces when our power inevitably goes out during the winter. I cannot say the same for electric heating. - Many of the proposed policies affect rural areas disproportionately and can be seen as blatant discriminatory practices. Upstate cannot be forced to buy all new equipment just to appease city dwellers. | ||
| Gary,Heale | Going "green" is a progressive PIPE DREAM that is not feasible! Electricity is the most expensive form of energy, no matter whether used for heating or for automobiles!! Do the math!!! Put up all the windmills and solar panels and there still wouldn't be enough energy to do the job. The US is at the top of the low-carbon emission countries. The real problems with emissions is with China and India. | ||
| Dorothy,Kelly | The plan is far too ambitious and rapid. We don't have adequate infrastructure and financial resources to implement so quickly. It is similar to federal government simplictically recommending people transition to $60,000 electric vehicles in light of outrageous gas prices. Ordinary working and retired people cannot afford incompetent government driven by impractical progressive ideologues. Hear us! | ||
| Diane,Carrk | B At Ease LLC | When we put all of our eggs into one basket "Electricity" we limit our success overall!! I understand the utility companies would want to corner the market to reap the most revenue and of course lobbies for such, but again who's forgotten.... the people. Once again, the government is happy to take away options (how people wish to fuel their homes and properties) and remove the diversity of options that can balance the market and make it affordable to all walks of life for the people of NYS and the US. As the population continues to grow and people live longer more energy is needed and electricity alone is not the answer (as this in itself uses fossil fuels), only to cause problems down the road. Electricity for fuel is only a bandage. If you really want to solve the problem.... figure out how to store energy in large capacity batteries and/or add/keep fuel options available, like solar, wind, oil and even nuclear energy. So, my advice is, do not put all your electricity eggs into one basket, because when it fails, it will affect everyone in many different ways, and I can't imagine how devasting that would be. Politicians tend to function and make decisions this way, but most of them are attorneys.... need I say more? | |
| Kellie,Leeson | Please see the attached for my full public comment. Thank you. | has attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | We must rapidly decrease our GHGs; one way to do this is to build multi-faceted projects like the three multi-faceted Resiliency Z ones concepts detailed in my comments. These Resiliency Zones meet multiple CLCPA goals simultaneously and are designed to address a variety of goals and scenarios. My comments also include: developing a NY State grant category specifically for multi-faceted projects, an illustration to help visualize multi-faceted projects, and a request for NY State to develop an interactive statewide map of the solar generation potential for all existing parking lots over a certain size. I also include info on existing maps of parking lot solar generation potential for CT and LI. One of the multi-faceted project configurations in my submission puts broadly defined first responders front and center. While this project type will lower GHGs, this project type can be promoted and built without ever mentioning climate or GHGs. By avoiding discussions of climate and GHGs, this project type reaches across political divides and increases its appeal to municipalities/agencies/stakeholders. Another project type covered in my submissions promotes rapid and widespread build out of geothermal building electrification paired with adjacent local solar on existing built environment locations. This concept is designed to facilitate co-development of geothermal heating/adjacent solar before the distribution grid is able to handle the solar. All three of the multi-faceted concepts in my submission aim to maximize the climate solutions potential of the existing built environment, with a general focus on existing parking lots and their associated buildings. All three concepts include DER, energy storage, microgrids/islanding and EV charging. Building electrification is included in two of the concepts. One of the concepts also includes LMI housing and roof top agriculture/green spaces. All concepts can include precipitation collection. Thank you. | has attachment |
| Alisa,Leake | I don't believe in "clean energy" if it means high inflation and having most of our energy coming from electricity. I do believe in having filters on items that create air pollution and realize America has been filtering for decades while other countries haven't. I do believe in utilizing a diversity of energy resources to power NY and our nation including petroleum. | ||
| Anthony,contarino | single person | Keep close tabs on cost, constant monitoring and evaluation efficiencies, and inclusion of affected industries and communities. Thanks Anthony Contarino. | |
| Jared,Buono | I fully support an aggressive set of policies to decarbonize our world and appreciate NYS leadership on this issue. I personally take numerous actions to reduce my emissions foot print and would like to take more action. However, I am often limited in terms of budget. For example, I am desperate to move away from fossil fuel use in my home heating and transportation. Yet I cannot afford to install an air-source heat pump, or purchase a fully electric vehicle. These are two of the largest impediments I have in moving my family to clean energy. I would suggest a much larger subsidy for heat pumps and removal of NYS tax on electric cars (similar to NJ). | ||
| Anthony,contarino | single person | Care must be taken to include al sectors and not let it become a political weapon of any particular group, the term 'justice' already smacks of a predetermined agenda. Thanks Anthony Contarino. | |
| Patricia,Birchall | "NOW" is certainly not an appropriate economic time to institute such a plan! Many are struggling with the increased cost of necessities such as food, fuel oil, gas, and other products. Auto, home and medical insurance premiums have risen. Land and school taxes will increase. Service and repairmen have increased their fees. Everything gets passed down to those who can least afford it. Seniors and disabled residents with incomes slightly above public assistance guidelines were barely making ends meet before the current inflation and are physically unable to go back to work - those with meager savings are having to deplete it just to cover daily expenses, leaving nothing for emergencies. While climate change is a consideration, NYS and the Federal Government must realize "now" certainly is not the time to inflict more hardship on those least able to afford it. | ||
| Andrew,Bush | Please contact to schedule delivery.Pl ease ship to billing addre | I support CLCPA. I am a customer of Central Hudson, the major utility company in Poughkeepsie, and I have received a summary of their proposal for compliance with CLCPA. Their Principle 4, "All emission reduction solutions should be on the table; and right now, they’re not," appears to endorse fracking without naming it. I write to say that I am very firmly opposed to fracking. Central Hudson's Principles 2 and 3 (support the economy and keep costs down) are sensible, but suggest that the short-term economic impact is of equal importance as reducing emissions. If that is the intent, I disagree. I believe that reducing emissions is essential and must be accomplished, even if there are short-term economic disadvantages--although adhering to principles of economic and environmental justice is crucial. | |
| Stan,P | NOW is not the time. Gas prices at record high. Inflation at record high! Now is not the time for any transition to "clean" energy. The technology is not there yte. We all want a clean environment but not at the cost of people's livelihoods. New York needs more pipelines to get the natural gas prices down. We need more oil and refineries to get the cost of gasoline down. We need more fracking. Your solution is to go electric. My electric rates doubled earlier this year and you want me to use more electric. Where is all this electric coming from! What about the environmental impact of all the battery production needed and our reliability on foreign entities for the raw minerals needed to produce them? You want to eliminate oil and natural gas. Electricity can not heat my home. I went from heating oil and changed to natural gas several years ago. I received rebates because this was a "cleaner" way of heating but it was not as good as oil. Now you want to eliminate natural gas for "cleaner" electric. It will not work! Stop the insanity. Let's do this in moderation where it doesn't impact New Yorkers negatively or there will be less and less New Yorkers! | ||
| Scott,Harris | Since the whole theory of "Climate Change" is based in politics and neither science or history, this is a farce and the plans of action will only be detrimental to the population of New York. For those who are evolutionists, how many times in the past has the climate radically changed before man existed? Shouldn't evolutionists be consistent with their own pseudo-science? For creationist, the most radical climate change in history was the flood. The world has been drying out ever since. How man times have their been warm periods in man's past prior to the industrial revolution? History records many cycles or drought and flood throughout the world. History also records that the warm periods were very prosperous for mankind. For those who think they know something about science, why do the CO2 level increase following warming period instead of proceeding it? What is the relationship of sun cycles to earth temperature cycles? What is the relationship of El Nino and El Nina to trade winds and gravity? Politically - how is any of this going to improve New York as a place to live and reverse the trend of more people leaving this state than moving into it - and it is not just those who retire seeking a warmer climate. It is our young families that do not want to raise their children here. The best thing this Climate Action Council can do is dissolve itself and let the people of New York live with out being hassled by policies based on ignorance of actual science and history. (Yes, I do have a B.S. degree as well as an M.Div and my courses of study included the science courses relevant to this discussion) | ||
| Joseph,Zietz | It is absolutely ridiculous to conclude the burning wood to heat a home (2% in the entire state) is producing more emissions than the entirety of the transportation industry and other forms of heating. Really? Interstate vehicle travel is cleaner than the a few remote located wood stoves? Why not just tell the people that you wish to break their finances and their ability to be self sustainable? Perhaps the real issue is the .25% of public servants producing false climate reports. | ||
| Richard,Torre | ALL of this will benefit China! Unless you first address the need to manufacture all that is needed here in the US! How do you plan on charging the EV's in NYC? | ||
| Terry,Province | I still don't understand why Central Hudson gets away with a delivery fee for power and gas that is as much, if not more, than the actual power itself. First you are charged a service fee of 20.00 for electric, and 24.50 for gas, whether you used any or not. On top of that they charge a delivery fee for each. An example from last month shows that I paid .09 per kilowatt hour, and a delivery fee of .08. I used 72.00 worth of electricity, but by the time the rest was added up , my electric bill was 172.00. Service fee, delivery fee, transmission fee, fee, fee, fee. when it is all added up, the fees cost more than the actual power. Then there is a state and federal tax. If we want a positive comment on climate action and promote a clean environment, we have to clean up the corruption of power at the top first. The public, we the people, would like a fair and honest reply on why our power bills are so high and why there is so much intermittent power outage, service charges when we pay a delivery fee, extra transmission charges, and some that we have no idea what or where they come from. | ||
| Thomas ,Langtry | What the heck is climate justice. The carbon emissions goal is unrealistic in terms of the time frame. Green energy is not presently cost effective enough to replace fossil fuels and any attempt to accelerate the transition is an undue hardship on the average citizen. | ||
| Kibo,Yamashita | The fact that my local oil and electricity providers are screaming so loudly about this plan tells me all I need to know - i.e. that it is exactly what NY needs. I support the plan 100%. | ||
| Randall,Cassity | Natural gas is a critical component and the primary resource within our of our energy portfolio which must be maintained readily available and affordable. | ||
| Thomas,Peterson | Chapter 25. Common sense. Start by observing the results of the Green Party and the effect it is having on everyday hard working American citizens to feed there families and provide shelter. It is pushing poverty on the working class with intentional malice in an effort to make everything electric at the cost of the people. The United States has the highest standards in the world for fossil fuel production without question. Yet we are buying oil from foreign countries that not only chant death to America but process fossil fuel at much lower standards than the U.S. Also we allowed the shutdown of a viable running nuke plant(Indian Point) raising the cost of electricity for all of us. You have to realize this policy is adding to our carbon foot print not reducing it. If we concentrate or efforts for acquiring oil within our borders we would reduce our carbon signature, create more jobs, lower the cost of energy, improve the economy, which could free up more capitol for alternative research that could be applied using a timeline that won't ruin a family's life savings, and or retirement funds. One of life's most important lessons is DON'T LIVE PAST YOUR MEANS. Stop wasting our tax dollars and reverse your policies and bring America back to pre 2020 politics. Yes the answer is I was not just better off before the Democratic Party took office but much better off. Please do the right thing for your constituents. | ||
| Vincent,Maier | Everyone who thinks we will be fossil fuel independent by 2030 is foolish. All types of energy creation wind, solar, hydro, fossil fuel and nuclear will be needed to support our ever increasing use of electric. Another part of carbon reduction would be to turn off lights in empty buildings and reduce lighting by 50% on bridges and roadways. In ending fossil fuels, where are we going to get materials to fix our roadways and runways? Going green is a noble endeavor but the rich and affluent exempt themselves from the goal. | ||
| Ross ,Ostrow | U need consistency!!!!! | ||
| Ann,Playfair | Nuclear power is not clean. It takes 1000 years for spent rods to degrade and where can they be stored? There is no way you can depend on renewables without the support of natural gas at least: responsible fracking must be considered as well as oil. | ||
| Jennifer,Bluma | As a thirty-something professional, I moved during the pandemic to the Hudson Valley from an urban metropolitan area in order to live closer to nature and clean air. My breathing problems have improved significantly since moving to this area. I strongly support the reduction of emissions as outlined in the Draft Scoping Plan and CLCPA because it aligns with the mission of Central Hudson to reduce harm to the community. By supporting natural energy (solar and wind), we limit the potential for harm in our living environment and to our health while boosting the economy as more people are affected by unclean air health issues. I do not support nuclear power because of the unknown long-term potential for catastrophic damage, and would like to see solar and wind energy because accessible and affordable for everyone as the standard energy option. | ||
| John,Muldoon | New York is heading in the wrong direction! Instead of making living in New York more expensive they should be looking for ways to make it less expensive to live here. The State is creating another California and the same thing will happen in New York that happened there. People will leave and you will have to deal with the fallout of the decisions you make. As the population drops , so do votes and perceived power. Make N.Y. a competitive state in the economy. To do this you need people that work at all different levels. If you make it unaffordable to live here you lose the whole foundation of workers. The powers in Albany have already lost my vote. Time for a change in this state. If we can not find better people to run the state then it will be California #2. | ||
| Justin,Sher | Phase out ride sharing that relies in gas powered cars by requiring 100% electric by 2025 | ||
| Jonathan,Craine | My comment relates more to process than to specific contents of the final plan. An ideal process would have few presuppositions. A good deal of blue-skying should take place. Hearings, interviews, etc., would include ALL parties. When a preliminary framework is put together, you should go back to the various stakeholders, go over it with them, listen to objections or potential problems and find out the best way to minimize dislocations and chaos for all stakeholders while doing the best to achieve the objections. The process should be iterative, keeping all parties involved. The best final plan will be a compromise; not everyone will be happy and there will be bumps in the road ahead including some possible customer cost pain. Conversions cost money and nothing is free. Pollution costs money as well. Good judgment, rather than political maneuvering are required. Doing nothing is unacceptable. Going overboard is equally unacceptable. There is a reason I refer to myself as an extreme centrist, because we know how to get things done as a team with different points of view and not waste time fighting one another. | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Waste reduction, along with reuse and recycling of items, is important for reducing GHG emissions in NYS. Furthermore, the three Rs improve the efficiency of our economy. We must reduce or eliminate GHG emissions by implementing more environmentally conscious packaging, distribution, and marketing options. We must have a plan to promote waste reduction, product reuse, and product recycling throughout the State. I also support mitigating GHG emissions from the reduced waste stream. I support strengthening the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law by setting a target of 100% diversion by 2030 with timetables for elimination of combustion and landfilling of organics. Expanded funding is needed for programs that connect major generators of excess edible food with local food banks. To divert organic material from landfills and incinerators, we must expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure and must require local solid waste management to implement food scraps recovery. Successful models of organics collection programs must be expanded to residential housing, including multi-family and public housing. We need a per-ton surcharge on all waste, along with increased funding for sustainable materials management research. We need legislation to require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets and to allow single-use products on a “by request only” basis. Recycling must be supported through requirements for minimum levels of recycled content in products and packaging and expansion of container deposit programs. The State must use its purchasing power to drive recycling by enforcement of procurement standards for recyclable products. We need additional measures to limit waste and encourage recycling, including a comprehensive program for textiles, expansion of EPR and phase out single-use packaging. Electricity generation from gas produced at waste sites and farms must be limited to on-site use only. | ||
| Michael,Czupryna | This isn’t about saving our environment, it’s about controlling everyday citizen’s lives. I personally want to leave a better earth for future generations but this has gone too far. When politicians start practicing what they preach then I’ll listen. Until then…no! | ||
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances, including elimination of the “100 foot rule” - 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e), as well as elimination of the rule requiring free natural gas hookups on demand - 16 NYCRR §230.2(a). I also support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. Such incentives are critical for driving down emissions as quickly as possible and averting a mismatch of supply and demand during the timeframe when prohibitions on replacement equipment become effective. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. I support the Renewable Heat Now Legislative agenda or equivalent policy, including $1 billion in annual funding for electrified, affordable homes, the All Electric Building Act: S6843A (Kavanagh) / A8431 (Gallagher), the Advanced Building, Appliance, and Equipment Standards Act: S7176 (Parker) / A8143 (Fahy), Gas Transition and Affordable Energy Act: S8198 (Krueger) /AXXXX #TBD (Fahy), and the Fossil-Free Heating Tax Credit: S3864 (Kennedy) / A7493 (Rivera) and Sales Tax Exemption: S642A (Sanders) / A8147 (Rivera). Finally, I support funding for Disadvantaged Communities, who must not be left behind in this transition. | |
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | I wholeheartedly support upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating . Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet. Furthermore, I strongly support addition to the this process that there be a way to safeguard against misinformation which may be intentionally or unintentionally being injected into the discussion, which only interferes with the public having a clear understanding of what this law is about. Thanks. | |
| Frank,Ljutich | Please stay away from Fracked gas And please switch to renewables! You’re a little behind the eight ball aren’t you we’ve known this for 40 years or should I say I’ve known about it for 40 years but it’s your business! | ||
| TARA,HALL | This Draft Scoping Plan-policy will affect all newly built homes and businesses if implemented, completely altering the state's energy plan and will eventually put an end to gas services in buildings, natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying, and gasoline-automobile sales – among many other policies. Where is the definitive cost for this? Where are all the specifics on how we are going to heat our homes and water, cook our food, mow our lawns and saw our firewood, etc etc WITHOUT NATURAL GAS? ELECTRICITY = COAL, THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. SOLAR AND WIND CANNOT SUPPORT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE HERE IN NY. We taxpaying landowning citizens of New York upstate DO NOT WANT ANY OF THIS. Expect the mass exodus from NY to continue as long as ill-thought out policies like this keep being considered by state government. | ||
| Peter,Teall | Peter Teall, LCSW, LLC | First submission: Comments pertaining to Chapter 2 “The Time is Now to Decarbonize our Economy” ( | has attachment |
| Dianne ,Aliquo | Leeds DBA LLC | I have read the draft scope plan and cannot support it for the following reasons:1) the benefits cited are not supported by statistical analysis, 2) the costs and impact of sourcing precious minerals for outside the U.S. for building batteries and their disposals are not included , 3) having one primary source for all energy needs is irresponsible, 4) upstate communities and businesses will be devastated since walking and biking in the harsh summer and winter months makes it impossible, 5) hydrogen as a secondary source will require middle and low income to bare the heavy burden of converting existing fossil fuel heating. | |
| Trian,Azadi | I believe strongly in utilizing ecological dead zones such as roof tops for solar and reliable sources of wind such as offshore. The newer wind experiments with multiple smaller blades that can be replaced by a single worker seem to me the most economical and sustainable option for wind. I agree 100% that the grid must have a steady supply source, but that this source can ultimately be minimal as the renewable sources within the grid expand. Keeping open to new technologies will be important as advances comes in bursts that create waves of progress if supported. I am against nuclear due to the dangers it poses to all life, including our own, despite its lack of carbon. I am proud that NY is seeking to take swift action. Thank you for this progress. | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | Need to Expand NYSERDA Budget to Set Up and Fund an Office of Just Transition The Final Scoping Plan should recommend the establishment of an Office of Just Transition, controlled by the Governor, that would lead a multi-agency response to the challenge of climate change and transitioning to a decarbonized economy. NYSERDA’s $1.5 billion annual budget must be expanded by at least $125 million for a Just Transition Fund that the Office of Just Transition would administer. The office would develop and deliver training and income support programs for workers impacted by the transition; provide technical assistance and economic development support for businesses and communities to retool for new clean energy activities, products and services; and effectively implement new federal infrastructure funding and incentives as well as state labor policies to ensure high-quality job creation and economic development efforts are maximized. The office could also administer a public sector loan facility to accelerate investment in clean energy activities. Climate change is a new type of crisis facing the state, and only the governor can provide the multi-agency coordination and direction that is needed to ensure this transition is managed well. | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | Sector-Specific Goals and Enforcement Mechanisms are Missing in the DSP The Draft Scoping Plan does not ensure that the CLCPA targets are met. The Draft Scoping Plan: (1) at times does not clearly specify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for certain sectors; (2) adopts targets that are inadequate in relation to the overall CLCPA targets (i.e., an 85% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050); and (3) includes too many proposals that depend on voluntary action by industry and residents rather than legally enforceable mandates. The Final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each sector, including electricity generation, must achieve by the years specified in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. The Final Plan should also specify the state agency or agencies responsible for enforcing the CLCPA targets for each sector, including electricity. Taken together, the mandated industry sector reductions shall achieve the CLCPA targets. In addition to targets by sector, the Scoping Plan must specify in detail the regulatory mechanisms by industry sector that are necessary to ensure that each sector can achieve its goals, and the regulatory steps, including legislation, necessary to achieve these goals. The Council must review the state’s regulatory structure by each sector to determine what legislative and regulatory changes are necessary to ensure that structures are put in place to mandate that all businesses in New York comply with the clear GHG and co-pollutant reduction targets by a schedule the conforms with the CLCPA, and put recommendations for such changes in the Final Scoping Plan. When appropriate, GHG reduction targets should be set for individual large businesses, like utility companies. | |
| Charles,Purvis | This plan is terrible. Do not force people to use electricity exclusively. It is autocratic and fascist to disallow people to use other forms of energy. I heat my home with wood. I cannot afford electric heat. Instead force Central Hudson to become a non-profit organization. | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climater Reality Project NYC | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project - NYC | ||
| Stacy,Mantel | I experienced superstorm Sandy with much fear when I lived in Nassau County. With the concern about climate change and rising sea levels, I moved from there to Dutchess County. While in Nassau County in 1992 I switched from oil to gas to fuel my home. That was 30 years ago, more than enough time to make a transition to green energy. My new home is all electric now. I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. Buildings and transportation together account for more than 60% of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is widely accepted that electrification is the only viable way of substantially decarbonizing these sectors, which means that in the coming years, urban electricity consumption will increase dramatically. We must have targets to expand roof top and parking lot solar, and pair solar with electrification of low-income housing and opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. The plan should also consider otherwise unusable areas (e.g.highway rights of way and brownfields) for siting of renewables, grid enhancements, and related infrastructure. Innovative siting such as agrovolatics should be encouraged. With the mainstreaming of heat pumps, mini-splits and heat pump water heaters, homeowners' and renter's utility costs are drastically cut and less CO2 is produced. As a senior citizen that has suffered asthma since childhood, less emissions will help me breathe easier. The Climate Action Council put forth three scenarios for our climate future. I am advocating for Scenario #3, which includes low-to-no bioenergy and hydrogen and the simultaneous acceleration of electrification of both buildings and transportation to ensure clean air and healthy environment. Thank you, CAC, for your hard work on this critically important law. | ||
| Ellsworth,Slater | Stop playing politics with this plan. You are getting the cart ahead of the horse. This is not a workable plan in any sense and I’m sure you know it. We don’t have to be the state that rushes off the cliff just for political points. Get serious and adopt a plan that would phase in and be workable and not so overpowering. For instance, if you started with just saying that all cars need to be a hybrid by a certain date. That alone would be a huge improvement to the environment and our power grid would not be jeopardized. There’s needs to be a country wide plane to provide a transmission grid capable of handling the power needs for all of the electric use under this plan. | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Our climate goals will not be achieved if we do not fund them. Investing in our green energy economy means investing in jobs and public health. By contrast, leaving our climate mandates unfunded threatens to put our workers and our communities further at risk. The inclusion of Economy-wide Strategies is an important addition to the draft plan, because even full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. We need to adopt a price on carbon in the final plan. Countless economists and scientists say that it is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. I recommend a carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. The carbon price start low and rise gradually each year, with the slope of the increase dependent on how quickly the GHG level is going down. This, along with returning revenue to households, is necessary to provide people and businesses reasonable time to transition to cleaner energy sources in response to clear, predictable pricing signals. Carbon pricing is preferred over many other alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. Even better would be an additional pollution surcharge for polluting industries. I strongly recommend that carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. We also need a border tax to cover foreign imports. | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | |||
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Cat skills | My name is Eve Morgenstern and I am a mother who is deeply concerned about our warming world. I am also co-chair of Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter and I am inspired by the CLCPA. I want to make sure NY reaches the goals. I have a few things I want to say about on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining. Please see my attached comments | has attachment |
| Brady,Fergusson | During the course of the comment period for the draft scoping plan, it has become apparent that there is a need for specific outreach aimed at correcting misinformation regarding the provisions of the plan. The campaign could be similar to the one mounted for COVID, in which trusted officials or community members speak to the false information which has arisen, and occasionally deliberately circulated. Although the specifics could vary depending on the audience, the prevailing message would be that the scoping plan will save money in the long run, both at the household level and at the state level; and that more jobs would be created and destroyed. Different messaging for different audiences could stress the health benefits, the lowering of transportation costs through more energy efficient, clean transportation, and the lowering of heating and cooling costs long term through geothermal heat pumps. Those of us who have been paying attention know that this bill is not only crucial to combat global warming, but will provide many benefits to the population of New York State. We need to make sure that our citizens understand this. As of now, it is not clear that they do, and the Climate Act will not succeed unless this changes. | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | The recent events in Ukraine show the need for fossil fuel independence. We must remove fossil fuels from the international geopolitical equation. Electrifying Transportation will not only reduce NY's GHG emissions, but also reduce our dependence on gasoline and its highly volatile price. I support the plan to reduce emissions through strong investment in EV charging infrastructure, by incentivizing EV adoption, and by electrifying the State vehicle fleet, as well as reducing total vehicle miles driven through expansion in public transit and promoting smart growth along public transit lines. We must accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion vehicles of all sizes, and I support moving the target for a zero-emission State passenger fleet to 2030. To effect more rapid adoption of EV’s, we need a progressively-structured feebate on internal combustion vehicles to subsidize purchase of zero emissions vehicles. Furthermore, I support easier direct-to consumer sales of ZEVs and the elimination of sales tax on all ZEVs. An accelerated State-supported fast-charger infrastructure build-out must accompany the accelerated adoption of EV’s. Further build-out can be realized by incentivizing employers, retail and grocery stores, and other places where cars are parked for extended periods to install charging stations. We encourage the state to develop Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) charging capabilities for personal vehicles for micro-grid stabilization. Finally, EV adoption must be supported through adjustment of utility rates to encourage EV use and off-peak charging. In addition to NYC, usable public transportation must be developed in all urban locales in NY State. Reliable intercity public transit should be included in the plan. Should it prove impossible to completely electrify long haul buses and trucks, provisions must be made to prevent their use in disadvantaged communities. State and IDA funding must align with emission reduction strategies. | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | ||
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Cat skills | Please see my comments on Gas System Transition attached. | has attachment |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | Establish an Office of Just Transition that would lead a multi-agency response to the challenge of climate change and transitioning to a decarbonized economy. NYSERDA’s $1.5 billion annual budget must be expanded by at least $125 million for a Just Transition Fund that the Office of Just Transition would administer. The office would develop and deliver training and income support programs for workers impacted by the transition; provide technical assistance and economic development support for businesses and communities to retool for new clean energy activities, products and services; and effectively implement new federal infrastructure funding and incentives as well as state labor policies to ensure high-quality job creation and economic development efforts are maximized. The office could also administer a public sector loan facility to accelerate investment in clean energy activities. Climate change is a new type of crisis facing the state, and only the governor can provide the multi-agency coordination and direction that is needed to ensure this transition is managed well. A Worker and Community Assurance Fund must be established within the New York State budget to provide direct support to workers in fossil fuel-dependent industries as well as communities home to fossil fuel infrastructure. This funding could provide pension support and wage replacement for displaced workers, tax base replacement for local governments and school districts, and energy transition and economic development planning grants for communities. The State must require strong labor standards on any projects that use State funds or take place on State property, including strengthening existing labor standards under §224-a of the NY Labor Law. Strong labor standards should include: prevailing wage and benefits, project labor agreements, community benefits agreements, local hiring, use of pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs, and, where applicable, labor neutrality agreements. | ||
| David,Davenport | Net Zero Biofuels LLC | Net Zero Biofuels has a facility in New Windsor NY that produces up to 10 million gallons of Biofuel from NY Grown Soybeans. It reduces carbon output by over 87 percent from traditional fossil fuels. If anyone from the council would like a tour of our facility to learn more about our effort to contribute to a cleaner NY please call me anytime at 845-649-7171. All the best, Dave Davenport | |
| Brian,Fernandez | Build Modern Nuclear Plants Nuclear fission is the only technology that we have which guarantees the supply of energy that our society needs, while at the same time reduces our dependence on other countries and at the same time is the only one that wont destroy our planet. We should use nuclear power instead of other sources of energy because it can produce high levels of electricity without causing damage to our environment and atmosphere. In fact, although nuclear energy does release very small amounts of radiation into the air, these levels are even less than the radiation we receive daily from the sun, earth and inside our bodies. Another reason we should use more nuclear energy is that it is a cheaper source of energy than gasoline, a fuel source that has been troubling our economy for many years. Nuclear energy’s fuel source is uranium, which comes in pellets. One of these pellets cost about $7, which is the equivalent of three barrels of oil, which cost about $84. In 1993, 470 million tons of coal and 96 million barrels of oil were replaced with nuclear energy. By converting from oil to nuclear energy over $13 billion was saved. In conclusion consider having nuclear fission as a core component in our power strategy. The ignorance of the public in the topic can be fought with proper publicity but we can't fight physics. | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Establish an Office of Just Transition, controlled by the Governor, that would lead a multi-agency response to the challenge of climate change and transitioning to a decarbonized economy. NYSERDA’s $1.5 billion annual budget must be expanded by at least $125 million for a Just Transition Fund that the Office of Just Transition would administer. The office would develop and deliver training and income support programs for workers impacted by the transition; provide technical assistance and economic development support for businesses and communities to retool for new clean energy activities, products and services; and effectively implement new federal infrastructure funding and incentives as well as state labor policies to ensure high-quality job creation and economic development efforts are maximized. The office could also administer a public sector loan facility to accelerate investment in clean energy activities. Climate change is a new type of crisis facing the state, and only the governor can provide the multi-agency coordination and direction that is needed to ensure this transition is managed well. | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | New York urgently needs to align its regulation and oversight of gas utilities with the climate and equity mandates established by the CLCPA. New York's current public service law is not compatible with the CLCPA. The law promotes gas system expansion by establishing a gas utility obligation to serve any customer upon request while providing that existing customers subsidize new service connections, all of which move the state away from the important climate justice directives and binding emissions limits in the CLCPA. In order to meet the CLCPA's climate and equity mandates, New York will need to drastically reduce gas use. This poses a particular challenge for gas utilities because their business models are currently premised on expanding gas infrastructure and services. Allowing the tension between the public service law and the CLCPA to go unaddressed will significantly delay achievement of the CLCPA mandates while dramatically exacerbating affordability and equity challenges. Low income New Yorkers will suffer the most if the state fails to properly plan for the inevitable contraction of the gas system, as they will be among a shrinking group of customers burdened with the cost of maintaining an increasingly obsolete distribution network. Aligning regulation and oversight of gas utilities with the CLCPA's climate and equity mandates requires removing the legal basis and subsidies for the expansion of gas systems, as well as adopting rules and business practices that are consonant with decreasing gas sales and, where appropriate, the decommissioning of sections of the gas system. The Public Service Commission must be granted the authority and direction to align gas utility regulation and system planning with equitable achievement of the CLCPA's climate justice and emission reduction mandates. | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please refer to the uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | The Draft Scoping Plan does not ensure that the CLCPA targets are met. The Draft Scoping Plan: (1) at times does not clearly specify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for certain sectors; (2) adopts targets that are inadequate in relation to the overall CLCPA targets (i.e., an 85% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050); and (3) includes too many proposals that depend on voluntary action by industry and residents rather than legally enforceable mandates. The Final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each industry sector must achieve by the years specified in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. The Final Plan should also specify the state agency or agencies responsible for enforcing the CLCPA targets for each sector. Taken together, the mandated industry sector reductions shall achieve the CLCPA targets. In addition to targets by industry sector, the Scoping Plan must specify in detail the regulatory mechanisms by industry sector that are necessary to ensure that each sector can achieve its goals, and the regulatory steps, including legislation, necessary to achieve these goals. The Council must review the state’s regulatory structure by industry sector to determine what legislative and regulatory changes are necessary to ensure that structures are put in place to mandate that all businesses in New York comply with the clear GHG and co-pollutant reduction targets by a schedule the conforms with the CLCPA, and put recommendations for such changes in the Final Scoping Plan. When appropriate, GHG reduction targets should be set for individual large businesses, like utility companies. We are in a critical stage of the climate crisis driven by continued greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and must start reducing emissions dramatically in order to avert the worst effects of climate change. We must stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry ASAP. | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | I am the co-chair of the Western New York Chapter of the Climate Reality Project. I wholeheartedly support immediate upgrades to codes and standards in support of a net-zero future. I am concerned that timelines for some phase-outs are too long and details for phase-ins of alternatives are missing. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we need a definitive moratorium on all new fossil-fuel-based infrastructure with no allowances for expansion other than to maintain reliability during the transition to 100% electric heating. Such a moratorium is critical for preventing further delay in the transition away from fossil fuels and avoiding further harm to the planet and accumulation of soon-to-be-stranded assets. I strongly support the focus of the Scoping Plan on eliminating natural gas use in the buildings sector, including decommissioning of natural gas infrastructure as rapidly as feasible while still maintaining reliability and affordability. I strongly support the building/zoning code changes to phase out the use of natural gas in heating systems and other building appliances. Due to the longevity of buildings, it is critical to set the earliest possible date to mandate an all-electric construction. A mandate that goes into effect in 2024 for low-rise and 2027 for high-rise buildings is very reasonable. Note that Washington State is mandating all-electric heating in most of its new low- and high-rise buildings starting in 2023. Netherlands is also mandating all-electric new low-rise construction in 2023 and Germany in 2024. New York City, Los Angeles, and Montreal have mandated all-electric low-rise construction starting in 2024. Therefore, a 2024 mandate for New York State is not only reasonable, but is actually not as aggressive as some of the other mandates in regions with similar climates. Thank you for your hard work. Please examine carefully the disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. | |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | I would like to add some additional comments to my previous comments on the buildings chapter: In order to effectively decarbonize our buildings at the scale necessary to meet the CLCPA’s timeline, we need to build out emissions-free thermal energy networks that share heat sinks and sources and utilize high efficiency ground source heat pumps over the next two-decades across the state. Utility-scale thermal networks can connect multiple buildings together and capitalize on thermal energy exchange using sources like geothermal boreholes, surface water and even wastewater. Thermal energy networks will scale building decarbonization and reduce costs for customers with little impact to the electric grid even during peak periods. Utilities will be able to reduce the costs of electrifying buildings by spreading the costs of thermal networks across many customers and many years. These networks offer a clear pathway for workers with pipe skills to transition to thermal energy networks. In order to streamline a rapid roll out of utility thermal networks, to keep customer costs down, and to simultaneously smoothen the phaseout of gas, the cost of utility thermal networks must be added to the gas rate base. A neighborhood-by-neighborhood plan of replacing aging gas infrastructure with thermal energy networks will help transition buildings from gas to electric heating while keeping the size of the infrastructure as well as the number of supporting ratepayers more or less constant. This will not only help the new customers of these networks, but will also help prevent the delivery rates for existing gas customers from spiraling upwards. Please note that amending Section 30 of the Public Service Law to remove a customer's legal entitlement to utility gas and steam services is critical for the replacement of gas infrastructure with utility thermal networks. Otherwise, a single customer insisting on gas could derail the transition of an entire neighborhood. | |
| Elaine,Weir | My husband and I recycle our food scraps using our Village’s food scrape program. It is easy and practical to do. Since we only throw out non-food items into the trash, we no longer need to put our half empty plastic garbage bag every day. We only do that twice a month since the food garbage no longer smells up the kitchen. Also, I am guilt free when old food goes into the recycling bin since I know it will soon be useful compost for gardens We need to strengthen Food Donation & Food Scraps Recycling Law, and & set targets & timetable to eliminate combustion & landfilling of organics. Stronger programs requiring major food waste generators (hospitals, universities, supermarkets) to transfer excess edible food to where it's needed (local food banks.) Expand local financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure & require local solid waste management planning to incorporate food scraps recovery. Also expand successful models of organics collection programs, including to multifamily & public housing. Waste Reduction is also needed. Require a per/ton surcharge on all waste to fund the three R's (reduction, reuse, recycling). Enact "By Request Only" legislation for single-use products & require reusable/refillable options in retail outlets. I especially like the refillable options in retail. Require minimum level of recycled content in certain products & packaging. Expand container deposit programs and enact state procurement standards for recyclable products. Implement comprehensive textile waste reduction & recycling. Enact broad extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements and enact legislation to reduce and phase out single-use packaging. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards. Implement the CLCPA targets without distractions by the multi-million-dollar campaign of misinformation from the fossil fuel companies. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting to today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma and heart disease. The air pollution is so bad in Westchester County my daughter moved to the Adirondack where the air is cleaner. You can understand why I am so motivated for clean air. We need to STOP building out fossil fuel infrastructure and that especially means power plants that generate Electricity. We need to build up renewals like Scotland has done. We need windfarms like Whitelee which has become an eco-tourist attraction aided by an on-site visitor center. The visitor center is host to an interactive exhibition room, cafe, shop and education hub. The visitor center also gives access to a network of over 90 km of paths for cyclists, ramblers and horse riders. The visitor center offers activities for education and community groups. There is also a dedicated - free - electric vehicle charging station. Whitelee gives back to the community by helping support local schools and hospitals. I loved my visit there a few years ago. I found Scotland was filled with wind turbines on farms and solar panels on the sides of the railroad tracks. If Scotland can do it New York can do it. Let’s use our roadways and roof tops for solar. Let’s help farmers to obtain a steady income with wind turbines in their fields where their cows graze, just like in Scotland. Let’s educate people and local governments on how renewals will help us clean the air. Accelerate Development of large-scale renewables projects and promote community acceptance of clean energy siting Let’s make a clearer and better future for all. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards that you know will clean our air and reduce climate change. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Thomas,Colatrella | I Hate Central Hudson ever since their "New System" in September 2021 they're a bunch of foreign criminals cheating us lying to us and ripping us off! | ||
| Walter,Melnick | The approach to achieve carbon free status should be a goal and not a requirement on a strict timetable. We still have peak demand issues with current usage and with plans to add millions of electric vehicles and other carbon free concepts we will have a crisis. In addition, the cost of rapid transition of electric generation to developing technology that is improving rapidly, will have expensive and relatively inefficient early generation technology in our plants for many years, perhaps generations. That will make NYS more expensive to live and conduct business than other states that approach conversion in a more moderate fashion. The race to be early in being net zero will have NY miss out on rapidly changing technology, and be a loser in cost effective and non polluting energy. | ||
| Dwayne,Sullivan | (2030: Adopt zero emission standards that prohibit gas/oil replacements (at end of useful life) of heating and cooling and hot water equipment for single-family homes and low-rise residential buildings with up to 49 housing units.) How are people supposed to comply with the above mentioned requirement. Retire and remove gas and oil heating at the end of useful life then replace it with an electric heat pump. Has the state performed an analysis to determine if families would be able to afford this transition. My home would cost an excess of $20000 to swap to an electric heat pump. How are people supposed to afford to be able to live in New York. I was born in New York and have lived here my whole life but, like many other residents, I will end up moving to another state because I won't be able to afford it here any more. | ||
| Eden,Hart | The current energy resources used by rural up state residents is significantly less than the power hogged by New York City and the other major cities in the state. When I drive by Manhattan at night every light is on! When the lights are out and the air conditioners are off I’ll know the cities are serious in their quest for green utilities. Upstaters are very conscious of their usage and don’t put a strain on the grid. When our water heater broke this year we intended to install a solar capable unit that didn’t need natural gas to heat our water all summer. Great unit from GERMANY! would be available in probably a year we were told. Ended up installing best regular unit available now. New Yorkers want the benefit of great technology but it is not available! Also, German unit was super expensive. I believe the people who crafted the climate bill live in the city and have no idea about how rural people live, how farmers need fossil fuel to farm crops and people with a lawn need gas to mow it. Do you know electric cars need massive amounts of lithium? Mining for lithium is large scale strip mining that pollutes the water. No fresh clean water to drink. Going Green means clean air, water, and food first and foremost. Pharmaceuticals are polluting our bodies and water sources. Glyphosate is poisoning our food. All of those bio-hazard face masks are all over the place spreading so called germs. Government as usual is jumping the gun with a great idea but with no realistic plan, technology, or the hardware to implement it. | ||
| Meg,Browne | Calculate the benefit to socity and the cost savings to the public, businesses, nonprofits and the environment into the equation. This is not all about Central Hudson's costs or the state's costs. Those are short term. The long term benefits need to be brought into play. Please consider ways to recycle solar panels so we aren't, once again, dependent on hostile foreign trade parties. Also, there may be a recycling benefit. Not sure but if you don't need to mine for solar parts, you may not have to do as much damage to the earth. Please do not consider nuclear power as a "green" energy. I lived within 10 miles of Three Mile Island and was home on spring break when the meltdown occured. I was in Germany when Chernoble happened. The risks of any type of leak or meltdown are far to great to consider this a "green" energy producer. Continue to provide subsidies as well as help for low income home owners so they can install greener heating and cooling systems and make their homes more efficient. Or enable landlords to do so. This isn't just about companies. Consider other policies. Urban Soils Institute scientists have invented materials that can be painted on buildings to enable small plants to grow, helping to reduce heat island effect. Consider such policies. USI scientists have invented a lighter soil that enables larger plants to grow on rooftops. Consider this type of alternative when talking about heating and cooling and use of electric. Greening cities in this way will go a long way toward reducing the need for heating and cooling. | ||
| Thomas,Craparo | I hope that local government regulations aren't used to restrict the development and implementation by home owners for putting alternative energy production methods on private land. Specifically hydro and wind electricity generation along with solar and battery backup systems. Currently if I have a stream running through my property it is very difficult to get permission to use it for hydroelectric power generation. Regardless of whether or not I would like to use it for myself or feed it back into the grid. | ||
| Kesai,Riddick | I'm incredibly happy that NYS is transitioning to renewables as its main form of energy. I am concerned that Carbon Capture is being considered as a method to address climate change though. Carbon Capture has shown to be ineffective and creates toxic emissions when used. I trust and know you're doing your research, but I wanted to voice my concern. Thank you all for what you do. | ||
| Michele,Foriska | The plan is terrific and we do need to implement alternate energy sources AS LONG AS it does not cripple businesses and homeowners with significantly increased cost. | ||
| Aileen,Morgan | Our family feels strongly on using only one source of energy to power our home. We DO NOT want to rely entirely on the power grid. This winter was a prime example of why; we were out of power for 4 days in single digit weather. Had it not been for the ability to heat water with propane, we would have incurred severe damage to our health and home. We believe in sustainable energy choices, and reducing emissions and global impact, but DO NOT WANT to be cornered into one source of energy supply. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting to today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma and heart disease. The air pollution is so bad in Westchester County my daughter moved to the Adirondack where the air is cleaner. You can understand why I am so motivated for clean air. In New York State our 2nd biggest source of pollution is transportation. For cleaner air we need to electrify our transportation system. For example, school bus electrification prevents children's exposure to diesel exhaust, which can leak into buses making it a larger health threat than outdoor idling emissions In addition, with electric vehicles, air quality improvements will be for everyone. Particularly in Disadvantaged Communities, which have disproportionately laden with polluting infrastructure because their housing is close to highways and bus depots. We need to improve/expand Public Transportation. This will benefit everyone by allowing more access to educational & job opportunities & healthcare, particularly for low-income individuals and those who do not drive. Public transportation allowed my daughter to attend college. We also need walkable/cyclable communities. Walkable communities not only keep our air clean, they also improve health, safety & quality of life for New Yorkers. Being able to walk to stores will keep our air clean but also make life easier. We need to work extensively with local governments to incentivize, and zone for, smart growth. Such as increasing the development of transit nodes, incentivize businesses to develop along public transit lines, and to encourage their employees to use them to commute. However, this must start very soon because Smart Growth zoning changes will take decades to yield significant reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards that you know will clean our air and reduce climate change. | ||
| Mark,Taranto | You guys are full of hot air. All the politicians driving big ass car's personal plane's. All you are doing is screwing the small people pretty fed up with it....... | ||
| Aadi,Bhattacharya | Hotshot Hotwires | The Hotshot Hotwires was a three-time Hudson Valley FIRST LEGO League champion team that represented New York at the FLL World Championship from 2017 to 2019. This year, alarmed by the worsening climate crisis and the inaction at the federal and NY state level, we regrouped as a youth group for non-partisan science-based climate advocacy. Our core group includes 15 school districts, 7 New York assembly districts, and 4 New York state senate districts. We are writing to ask the Climate Action Council to propose an accelerated timeline for mandating all-electric new buildings in New York State, which is critically important due to the longevity of buildings. A mandate that goes into effect in 2024 for low-rise and 2027 for high-rise buildings is very reasonable. Note that Washington State is mandating all-electric heating in most of its new low- and high-rise buildings starting in 2023. Netherlands is also mandating all-electric new low-rise construction in 2023 and Germany in 2024. New York City, Los Angeles, and Montreal have mandated all-electric low-rise construction starting in 2024. Therefore, a 2024 mandate for New York State is not only reasonable, but is actually not as aggressive as some of the other mandates in regions with similar climates. Thank you! | |
| Dan,Elmendorf | It really is not proven, that human caused CO2 is the MAIN control lever for climate change. And even if fossil fuel use does raise the global temp a small amount, neither is that necessarily a bad thing. If you do believe that CO2 is that dangerous, then at least let's push hard for nuclear energy. Nuclear is a "dense" form of energy creation. Its footprint is small and output is huge. And yes, it is safe. I have solar on our home. Fact is, during a snow storm, it is useless. During overcast it is nearly useless. No energy comes in when the panels are covered with snow. No energy comes in when its nighttime. On a macro level, solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy. Batteries are difficult to use on a large scale. I conclude that we are no where close to prime time for solar and wind-powered grid. Further, if you use these unreliable, intermittent technologies, then we must assure that we have full backup of conventional sources of energy, else you are setting us up for rolling blackouts. Another issue is this - now that the push is for EVs and electric everything, my hunch is that our electric wiring on our grid is not quite up to the increased load. Is it? This is not a panacea. | ||
| Mark,Ratikan | Consultant | De-carbonizing will do nothing. This program will fail and simply drive more people & business out of NY to states with saner, more cost-efficient policies. | |
| Robert ,DeStefano | I am against the plan as stated. It is misguided and unrealistic.Once again leave it to New York leadership to screw things up at the expense of its residents. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting to today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma and heart disease. The air pollution is so bad in Westchester County my daughter moved to the Adirondack where the air is cleaner. You can understand why I am so motivated for clean air. In New York State our biggest source of pollution is buildings. The affect Asthma prompted my family prompted to switch to Geothermal heating and it works. Our ConEd bills are lower. The heat pumps in our basement both heat and cools the house and do not pollute the air. We know how to insulate our buildings and build energy efficient windows and have heat pumps that now work in cold weather too. The technology is here and each year it will get even better. We no longer need fossil fuels in our buildings. According to the NYS Climate Action Council Presentation October 14, 2021 Meeting 16. WE MUST NOT DELAY. Delaying will cost New Yorkers in both their health and their money. STOP all new fossil fuel infrastructure NOW. We must get rid of the rule requiring FREE natural gas hookups. (the100foot rule & gas on demand). This is not FREE. It increases the cost to all the gas users. Please do not let the fossil fuel industry or others influence you with their incorrect information. For example, I attended the All-Electric Building hearing. I was horrified by the ignorance of some NYS Representatives saying All-Electric Building cannot work in cold climates. My daughter lives in an All-Electric Building. According to google the Adirondack is the coldest place in NYS. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards that you know will clean our air and water and reduce climate change. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Kathy,Evans | In the Draft Scoping Plan Chapter 13 on Electricity E2. Accelerate Growth of Large-Scale Renewable Energy Generation and E4. Support Clean Energy Siting and Community Acceptance, it is unrealistic to project this scale of wind power given the extensive land requirements and widespread opposition. I'm a liberal democrat very concerned about climate change but live in a rural area. Rural areas are still populated. We have done our research and have legitimate concerns about noise, health, quality of life, wilderness and wildlife management areas and can not be just bought. Be honest with us, listen to our concerns, don't treat us like unintelligent children that need to be "educated". Sufficient setbacks will be extremely important but underscore there really isn't enough vacant land for your proposals so that everyone can be adequately protected. Appendix G states 9.5-11 gigawatts (GW) of new land-based industrial wind generation capacity will be needed by 2050 – the equivalent of 9500-11000 megawatts (one GW equals 1000 MW). This amount of land-based wind would require between 760,000 and 1,100,000 acres of land. This is unreasonable and places to large a burden on rural areas who are just considered collateral damage. | ||
| john and Barbara,Henry | We do not support this plan | ||
| Jennifer,Minner | Circularity Reuse and Zero Waste Dev elopment network | I am writing as a concerned citizen and as a partner in the Circularity, Reuse and Zero Waste Development network. I believe that this draft could do so much more to incorporate decarbonization and climate justice by supporting deconstruction, salvage and reuse as climate solutions. New York State and must innovate in the creation of a circular economy, where instead of business as usual where we extract materials, use them for a short period, and then discard them, construction and demolition waste is used as a resource in addressing climate change. New York State must address the massive amount of waste that it produces through prolonging the life of building stock and building materials using a range of sustainable actions. This requires going deeper than even deep energy retrofitting buildings to conserve operational energy in the state's building stock, but transforming the entire construction and demolition industry by recognizing the importance of conserving embodied energy. This will take a system of regulations and incentives that will also contribute to the creation of green jobs and a green economy, which is essential in striving for climate justice. Demolition in New York State must reflect the true environmental and social costs of its externalities and should become replaced by full deconstruction and then those reclaimed materials (with their embodied carbon) should become the material to build our cities into sustainable places. | |
| Alexa,Marinos | This is my letter to the editor submitted to the NY Daily News on 6/20/2022: To the Editor: Thank you, Ben Jordan, for your sense of history regarding the gas crisis of the 1970s, and its inability to move the needle on the climate-killing pollution we’re experiencing today. Yes, more efficient cars became popular for a time. Now, however, we drive gas-guzzling SUVs, and more and more of them. Trimming gas prices will certainly not save us from our current climate crisis and high levels of air pollution. Electric vehicles will. The Climate Action Council draft scoping plan has already committed to electrifying New York State’s light duty vehicle fleet by 2035, and to pump $1 billion into supporting EV adoption and infrastructure, as well as committed to zero emission school busses by 2035. What we need to see is commitment to electric trucks, to good transit to reduce vehicle miles travels, and the increased affordability of electric vehicles to all New Yorkers. | ||
| Anthony,Validzic | Town of Milo, New York | Thank you for taking the time to read this email. My name is Anthony Validzic and I am the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Milo, which is located within Yates County (Finger Lakes). I am writing to you today concerning NYS’ climate change proposals. These proposals will have a significant negative impact to our residents and local businesses. Examples of our concerns are but are not limited to the following: a. NYSEG has expressed concern about its ability to provide electrical service to a local business owner who wants to expand his business. This concern is due to the overhead wires being “maxed out” and cannot provide the required electrical demand for this local business. How can NYS require new buildings to be “all-electric” when the supplier cannot even support additions? b. Many residents rely on their gas stoves especially during power outages. We do experience power outages in our area and some can extend to several days. Has anyone considered this issue? c. Many residents have permanent, standby generators due to power outages that are connected to natural gas or propane. Will these generators be banned? d. NYSEG has informed its customers that they have filed for state approval to increase the electrical rates in order to meet the demands/requirements of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Many residents are struggling with rising costs at all areas (e.g., food, clothes, gas, etc.). How much more can we take? e. It is our understanding that new dwellings will be required to install a dedicated 50 amp circuit breaker and wiring for a electrical vehicle charging station. Our Town has a substantial amount of HUD manufactured homes (mobile homes) that typically are installed with only a 100 amp panel. Most of these owners can barely afford the home they are buying. We also have a large Mennonite community. Will NYS have exemptions from this requirement? | |
| Craig ,Almeter | this will cause Utility bills to skyrocket, our Infrastructure can NOT handle the increase in electrical demand, the majority of our electricity is not clean or renewable. | ||
| Barbara ,Buri | re: Climate Action Proposal I completely OPPOSE the proposals being considered to eliminate use of natural gas and gasoline automobiles. This proposal is I'll conceived and destructive to the wellbeing of the State. The electrical infrastructure is currently marginal at best. Naturally gas and current automotive propulsion is totally adequate and environmentally sound both for now and the future. The day dreaming progressives are creating nightmares for us all. Leave well enough alone! Barbara Buri | ||
| Earle,Holt | Total electric homes have been tried in the past on Long Island, NY, around the 1960's - I think. The homes were celebrated as being the most modern and efficient and the way of the future. The all electric homes were called "Gold Medallion Homes" and proudly had a gold medallion placed on the front of each home. As the cost of electrical energy rose during those years, the folks who lived in those medallion homes eventually had to sell the homes because they were too expensive to live in. After a while, many of the homes were left vacant because most average folks could not afford to live in them. At the same time, homes served with a variety of fuels, electric, gas, fuel oil, wood stoves all seemed to work just fine for folks to live in as their utility costs were way more manageable. This political push for total electric is not a good idea - even if the bought and paid for scientists are slavishly repeating follow their supposed proven science. Its funny/sad how scientists will say and try to prove just about anything for the people in the background who are paying them. Its like a form of high brow prostitution - IMO. | ||
| William,Ellison | I am totally against forcing people to only be able to buy a new vehicle that is electric by 2035. This is unrealistic and too much of a burden on the average consumer. I guarantee you that the closer we get to the 2035 cut off date there will be a huge push back from the citizens of this state and you will have no choice to either push the date out further or abandon this plan all together. | ||
| john,bruce | Under your plan we will be forced to get rid of good working and paid for furnaces and gas powered vehicles,and go into debt to buy expensive heat pumps and electric vehicles. NYSEG wants to raise electric rates. All of this will put a financial strain on low and middle income working families and seniors on fixed incomes. There will be a wealth transfer from working people to the very wealthy. Some of us may not even beable to afford to keep our homes. This plan is bad. | ||
| Sara,Schultz | Sierra Club Niagara Group | As an early adapter in EV technology I have had much frustration with the slow implementation of fast chargers along our NYS travel routes. It is the comment I hear the most when tabling for Sierra Club while trying to promote EVs. We will never reach our goals unless we move forward quickly to make cross state EV travel easy and efficient. Regarding public transportation, there is no excuse for our poor upstate public transportation. In the city of Buffalo at least 30% of residents living in disadvantaged communities do not have cars. There can be no equity without access to easily accessible buses and rapid transit. For too long we have gone without rapid transit to our International Airport as well as to our stadium and the North Campus of SUNY Buffalo. These are the biggest obstacles for a cleaner and more equitable WNY region. Our government and local municipal fleets must be mandated to transition to EVs with an affordable state procured list of dealerships that will provide our municipal departments. On the Amherst, NY Energy Conservation Citizens Advisory Committee we have run into a lot of resistance from our department workers. There should be a broad education program to lay out the advantages and the requirements to EV transition. | |
| Sara,Schultz | Sierra Club Niagara Group | ||
| Virginia,Brennan | American Citizen | I am against phasing out gas production. We should be using our plentiful natural resources and not buying from other countries ESPECIALLY NOT COMMUNISTS!!! | |
| Laurie,Husted | Thank you for getting us to this point. Please include economy-wide strategies to the draft plan, because without them, even with full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve your important CLCPA goals. I recommend a price on carbon, which countless economists and scientists say is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs; Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Thank you! | ||
| Michael,Stein | New York Legislators needs to have an honest public discussion on the biggest fraud perpetrated by the IPCC, Michael Mann of Penn State and Phil Jones of the Climate research Unit at the University of East Anglia on the nations of the world. NYS Legislators have shown an absolute incompetence in dealing with Social problems like bail reform and they are no different when it comes to Climate Change. We should not be making any decisions to eliminate fossil fuels etc until they understand the consequences of any of their actions on the people they supposedly represent. | ||
| David,Cesari | NA | I am a very active birder. I have birded the Harris Rd. area for several years. Grassland birds are in serious trouble here in the northeast. The Harris Rd. area has Upland Sandpipers, Wilson's Snipe, Eastern Meadowlarks and Bobolinks. The Harris Rd. area is the only place where I I can find Upland Sandpipers. Upland Sandpipers are in trouble in the north eastern US. I have included some pictures of Upland Sandpipers I took on Harris Rd. Thank you, David J. Cesari | |
| Dawn,Filipski | The electric grid as is today can not support additional power load. In buffalo I would hate to be stuck in traffic jam due to snow in electric vehicle. What is back up option to power a home is going to be available when power grid crashes, right now millions of homeowners have invested in Natural gas powered back up generators. In fact NYS operated group homes for disabled all must be equipped with natural gas powered back up generators. The expense across NYS would be huge to discontinue natural gas. I like the idea of walkable communities. I think NYS should invest in creation of a model community. If NYS took over the Opwdd campus on East and west road in Erie county, they could create one. They could turn this eye sore into profit for NYS. The need for disability housing is strong for both elderly as well as families with disabled family members. Additionally, NYS could relocate group homes in the community back to a central area. This could allow some individuals an opportunity to live in an assisted living arrangement based on their abilities. My thoughts are well more than allotted space so reach out for more details. | ||
| Joseph,Naab | Converting everything to electric powered just to save carbon emissions is laughable. Power generation uses fossil fuels to generate it anyway. Assuming everyone gets an electric car and buys electric appliances (assuming they can even afford it), the price of electricity will SKYROCKET and be in short supply. Who's going to pay for the necessary upgrades to our electric grid? We don't get enough sunlight here in the northeast to make solar even feasIble, particularly here in the northeast! My solar lighting is PROOF of that! As for wind, what good are costly, unreliable windmills that breakdown and have short lifespans. Never mind the noise they make. Not to mention all the birds they kill ! They are also UGLY! This is a waste of taxpayer money, and will fail just like Solyndra did. Until someone invents a way to make free energy in a better way than this, I will vote Republican and NEVER support this pie in the sky philosophy. There are many better uses for taxpayer money than something that will only lead to more waste of taxpayer money in the future. LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, MY WIFE AND I ALONG WITH MOSTLY ALL OF MY RELATIVES AND NEIGHBORS DO NOT SUPPORT THIS REDICULOUS IDEA. Mr. and Mrs.Joseph M. Naab | ||
| DALE,GRAYBILL | It seems that New York is always in a race to do something without the benefit of forethought. The electrical grid in New York is not capable of handling the enormous power demand of a totally electric society. This will cause blackouts, fires, not to mention other problems, like poverty. Energy is very expensive now, who can afford to change the heating in their house, buy an electric car, purchase expensive solar panels. Who are the people who think this could happen so quickly, they must be wealthy and lack common sense. First, upgrade the electrical grid, and find ways to make energy cleaner and cheaper before regulating. This kind of regulation will drive more people from the state. Thank You, Dale Graybill | ||
| Kelly ,Slaugenhoupt | At a time of unprecedented inflation, asking citizens to take on the burden of the financial cost of switching to electric power is overreaching and under researched. It costs a great deal to heat out homes in the winter. There is no wellspring of money to offset additional costs represented by supposedly cleaner energy. Natural gas and oil are currently supported by our infrastructure and the steps that have been taken and continue to be maintained are a far less burdensome path toward a cleaner environment. There is no currently acceptable methodology for disposal of the batteries required for electric vehicles and power. The impact of these batteries on the environment will be far more detrimental to the environment than our current situation. | ||
| Frank,Porreca | Overreaching? I should say so. Nothing is cleaner or more efficient than natural gas or propane. Pushing New Yorkers towards all electric households is as foolish as pushing them into EVs. The power grid will not support it and the people do not want it. Our previous governor closed nuclear and coal powered power plants as well as banning fracking for natural gas and propane. How will this necessary electricity be generated. Maybe someone should think this plan through a little better. And by the way, the best chefs in the world prefer cooking on open flame, as do I. | ||
| victoria,stauder | What to say is I disapprove on the proposal of going with all electric. I do not see the same views as the Governor does for New York. I would LOVE New York city to to be separated from Western NY. The want these changes we don't want all this new change thinking it helps us. Just give the American people a choice for their needs and wants. STOP demanding us to walk in someone else opinion. Our likes are different MY likes are different and want to choose for me not be dictated on change I must take. Please stop thinking for me and let me continue to choose and be an American who enjoys the way of options!!!! Mrs. Victoria Stauder | ||
| Justin,Gingrich | Hotshot Hotwires | Please see attached PDF. | has attachment |
| Justin,Gingrich | Hotshot Hotwires | Please see the attached pdf. | has attachment |
| Tavish,Gupta | Hotshot Hotwires | Hello, I’m Tavish Gupta, a 7th grader at Shaker Middle School, and a member of Hotshot Hotwires, a youth group for non-partisan, science-based climate advocacy. I have known for some time that climate change was happening, but I assumed that it was somewhat under control. But this year, when I took a course on Earth Science and joined the Environmental Club in school, I realized just how bad climate change is, how much climate change is already impacting our everyday lives, and how much worse it will get if we don’t act now. After joining the Hotshot Hotwires, I also learned that our government is actually doing very little to protect us because fossil fuels are still growing in New York. For example, every new house gets a free gas line and hook up and everyone else pays for it with their bills. And the government isn’t doing enough because the gas companies spend a lot of the money they take from us, to stop the government. I have not even graduated middle school and we have already done irreversible damage from burning fossil fuels like natural gas. Scientists say that people under the age of 40 will experience unprecedented, life-changing effects due to climate change disasters. Young people like me, will be at the receiving end of the worst effects of climate change. At school, my Environment Club persuades better recycling and planting trees on the school campus. My family drives a car that is half electric and half gas. My house has solar panels also. But when our house was built, we did not know how bad natural gas was for children’s health or for the climate because it is always leaking. We should have only electric houses in New York. If my family had that option, they would have bought one to protect me and my brother from indoor pollution and to choose a house that is better for the climate. Thank you. | |
| Andrew,Harrison | This is a great start and long overdue! Keep up with the progress! | ||
| Ken,Rombaut | The time is wrong to limit natural gas use our electric grid is not large enough too supply enough electric power to stop using clean natural gas We are pushing all this electric use and it will cause another problem | ||
| Carole,Freeman | I should have a right to keep my gas appliances which I prefer. Stop forcing things on us we don't want and can't afford. Your supposed to be serving the people and your not. | ||
| Nicholas,Bugel | There is absolutely no Benefits of this plan other than forcing the average person to pay more or just to leave this all ready high tax state. | ||
| Kerri,Richardson | Please find attached. | has attachment | |
| Robert,Romick | I heartily support decarbonizing our economy as soon as possible. The costs of delay are too high. Buildings: We must ban fossil fuel use in new buildings immediately. We must deny new fossil fuel/gas infrastructure permits. We must provide funding (at least 1 billion dollars) for lower and middle income households so transitioning away from fossil fuels will save them money. Any home or building sale must require an energy audit and weatherization upgrade; the person buying must be informed of the cost to heat and cool the building. Waste: We must take all steps needed to eliminate 100% of organic waste from landfills by 2030. We must stop all waste incineration, especially plastic waste. Plastic producers must be held accountable to reduce and quickly eliminate plastics in packaging, and be assessed a cost for recycling. Electricity: We must quickly phase out fossil fuel generation, and increase renewable generation. I strongly support having 70% renewable electrical generation by 2030. Transportation: I support a "feebate" system to place a fee on new and used fossil fueled vehicles, and a rebate on new and used EV all electric vehicles. All new buildings should be EV ready. Employers with over 10 employees must provide EV charging. I understand "demand changes" assessed by electric utilities currently discourage public charging. We must require utilities to eliminate "demand charges" for vehicle charging. Public transportation must be encouraged and supported. I support any other methods to reduce fossil fuel use, such as vehicle idling bans and gas lawn mower taxes/ yearly fees to support battery lawn equipment. | ||
| Barbara,Good | Please consider how costly this plan will be for people on fixed incomes. | ||
| Thomas,Walker | Anyone that thinks doing away with Natural Gas for Home fuel, will never receive another vote from me. You would have to be an Idiot to think we can do without it in the north country. We certainly are not ready to go all electric the Inca structure is not here!!! Think twice before voting for this Plan . | ||
| Diane,Stefani | Climate Reality Project | ||
| Diane,Stefani | Climate Reality Project | ||
| Diane,Stefani | Climate Reality Project | ||
| Kyle,Carpenter | Mastercard | Stop this plan it's not going to help us it's going to hurt us please scrap all of it | |
| Kelly,Schramm | I am in the planning process of starting a diversified organic orchard in the Finger Lakes Region. As a young farmer, I am concerned about the future of sustainable farming globally and locally. We need to be investing in soil health and helping existing farmers wean themselves off of fossil fuels and dependence on synthetic inputs. NYS must invest in farmers that sequester carbon and improve foo access to their communities. We also must support underserved communities, especially including BIPOC and undocumented farmworkers in leadership roles. For far too long, this nation has supported larger corporations, including Big Ag, in stealing from the larger community through wage theft (which includes underpaying skilled laborers). These historically marginalized communities need a a leadership role to best determine how to move forward so that equity and community health increases. We must regulate and hold accountable the 12% of dairies in NYS that are responsible for nearly 70% of NY's dairy population, restructure our emissions laws to end to public investments in technologies, including expensive cover and flare systems and biodigesters, that enable the accelerating concentration of livestock farms. | ||
| James,Giardina | The idea of Govt mandated regulations and laws of energy sources like gasoline, natural gas, coal is literally crazy. Most politicians have no idea what you’re even discussing or the impacts of such ideas. You’re literally saying we need to go backwards. New York State and all elected officials should be first to end fossil fuels as being discussed. This means all NYS politicians and State Buildings and vehicles should 100% adopt this first. Prove the concept! You won’t do this in reality because you know it will fail. Stop this madness immediatly! | ||
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climatre Reality Project NYC | ||
| Connie,Stirling-Engman | Climate Reality | As a long-time resident of beautiful New York State, I support the CLCPA. It is time to decarbonize our economy and make it financially feasible for New Yorkers to participate in the transition to green energy through the purchase of electric cars, renewable energy and green building construction. I'm 70 and I fear for the future of the younger generation. They deserve a state (and a planet) that sustains life and lets flora and fauna thrive, alongside people. Pass the moratorium on cryptocurrency bitcoin mining, which is an enormous waste of water resources and only contributes to warming of our lakes and decline of fish populations. I'm a swimmer, and I see the growth of harmful algae blooms firsthand. Let New York be a leader in the nation in this transition and other states will follow. | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | |||
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | Please see my attached comment | has attachment |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | I am the co-chair of the Western New York Chapter of the Climate Reality Project. As a former teacher and grandmother, I am concerned about the future of our children. The Draft Scoping Plan does not ensure that the CLCPA targets are met. The Draft Scoping Plan: (1) at times does not clearly specify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for certain sectors; (2) adopts targets that are inadequate in relation to the overall CLCPA targets (i.e., an 85% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050); and (3) includes too many proposals that depend on voluntary action by industry and residents rather than legally enforceable mandates. The Final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each industry sector must achieve by the years specified in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. The Final Plan should also specify the state agency or agencies responsible for enforcing the CLCPA targets for each sector. Taken together, the mandated industry sector reductions shall achieve the CLCPA targets. In addition to targets by industry sector, the Scoping Plan must specify in detail the regulatory mechanisms by industry sector that are necessary to ensure that each sector can achieve its goals, and the regulatory steps, including legislation, necessary to achieve these goals. The Council must review the state’s regulatory structure by industry sector to determine what legislative and regulatory changes are necessary to ensure that structures are put in place to mandate that all businesses in New York comply with the clear GHG and co-pollutant reduction targets by a schedule the conforms with the CLCPA, and put recommendations for such changes in the Final Scoping Plan. When appropriate, GHG reduction targets should be set for individual large businesses, like utility companies. Thank you for your hard work, and for implementing the CLCPA Draft Scoping plan according to its intent. | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please see attached file. | has attachment |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | |||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please see attached file | has attachment |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | |||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please see uploaded document. | has attachment |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley & Catskills | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Diane,Curry | This scoping plan is ridiculous,our state shouldn’t make things so difficult for the average person. We need gas to function! | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | One major impediment to building electrification is the set of archaic laws and regulations that create an uneven playing field between gas and electric space and water heating options. The current public service law not only provides for the gas utilities to pass the cost and the risk of gas infrastructure expansion on to the ratepayers, but in many cases, it also mandates it. For example, the "100-foot rule" the “100 foot rule” (governed by 16 NYCRR §230.2(c), (d), and (e) of the Public Service Commission’s regulations) requires a gas utility to provide an applicant with a minimum length of main and service line extensions at no cost to the applicant. A conservative analysis by the New York Geothermal Energy Organization included in their testimony submitted to the Public Service Commission shows that just this subsidy costs New York's existing gas customers at least $200 million every year by way of additional delivery charges. This is an unconscionable subsidy for fossil gas that must end. Utility regulation must be aligned with the State’s climate justice and emissions reduction targets, and the provisions of the public service law relating to continuation of gas service must be repealed. The legal basis and subsidies driving the expansion of the gas system must be removed. The NYS Department of Public Service must adopt rules and develop a statewide gas service transition plan that is consonant with decreasing gas sales and decommissioning the gas system in stages. Additionally, I support ending rebates for purchase of natural gas equipment. Furthermore, I support incentivizing building owners to transition to electric heating and appliances before the end of the useful life of existing equipment. | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | In order to effectively decarbonize our buildings at the scale necessary to meet the CLCPA’s timeline, we need to build out emissions-free thermal energy networks that share heat sinks and sources and utilize high efficiency ground source heat pumps over the next two-decades across the state. Utility-scale thermal networks can connect multiple buildings together and capitalize on thermal energy exchange using sources like geothermal boreholes, surface water and even wastewater. Thermal energy networks will scale building decarbonization and reduce costs for customers with little impact to the electric grid even during peak periods. Utilities will be able to reduce the costs of electrifying buildings by spreading the costs of thermal networks across many customers and many years. These networks also offer a clear pathway for workers with pipe skills to transition to thermal energy networks for all-electric buildings. In order to streamline a rapid roll out of utility thermal networks, to keep customer costs down, and to simultaneously smoothen the phaseout of gas, the cost of utility thermal networks must be added to the gas rate base. A neighborhood-by-neighborhood plan of replacing aging gas infrastructure with thermal energy networks will help transition buildings from gas to electric heating while keeping the size of the infrastructure as well as the number of supporting ratepayers more or less constant. This will not only help the new customers of these networks, but will also help prevent the delivery rates for existing gas customers from spiraling upwards. | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | I've noticed an increase in misinformation push out by the gas industry and big money interests (mostly from out-of-state). They have been pushing heavily through media of all forms, including messages on gas pumps. I would urge the Council to immediately fund and start a sustained statewide education and awareness campaign on the benefits of the healthy, climate-friendly choices by consumers of heating and cooling, hot water, and cooking systems. This education campaign is necessary to counter the relentless and massive disinformation crusades by fossil-fuel interests and status-quo forces who’ve spent decades perfecting their chicanery, first to deny climate science, and now to cast doubt on the solutions. Given their long track record of weaponizing disinformation to sustain the extraction and burning fossil fuels, the absence of a public information component in the scoping plan is a surprising, but grave oversight. I encourage the Council to add a chapter on community-specific outreach, awareness, and education in the Final Scoping Plan with recommendations for assuaging New Yorkers disinformation-induced fears about the CLCPA and informing them how the law will be implemented and what are its climate, health, environmental, and economic benefits. I reject the use of natural gas as a supplemental heat source “at times of peak need”. This specious exception is not a true need and serves only the special interests of natural gas companies to maintain pipeline infrastructure indefinitely and to continue to profit from harming our environment by conducting business as usual. Other ruses being used by the corrupt gas utilities to deter or slow the transition from fossil gas are fairy-tale solutions like Renewable Natural Gas and Hydrogen. | ||
| steve,khanzadian | Steve Khanzadian Construction | First let me say I applaud the initiative. The reality is the planet is warming faster with the increase in dirty manufacturing across the globe and the rise in per capita income for those countries. It seems to me the best and longest lasting transitions are market driven. Mandates rile every American by nature. They create resistance not acceptance. While the goals are admirable the methodology to achieve them is not helpful for transition. Technology has a huge part to play here and currently is not in place for the proposed schedule. I have little doubt that the goals will not be met which means that the amount of time and effort spent on Draft Scoping Plan was a waste. Revisiting the plan with appliance industry and utility company experts would make progress on reduction of GHG in New York far more realistic. | |
| Kenneth,Panza | Mark Z. Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who claims the U.S. economy can run solely on renewable energy, filed a $10 million lawsuit in 2017 against the authors of an article in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" that challenged these claims. Dr. Paul Shepson, at the May 26 meeting of the Climate Action Council, appeared entitled to accuse those that disagree with the premise of 100% renewable energy as hyping misinterpretations, misinformation, and misrepresentation. Other council members supported Dr. Shepson’s accusations. Rather than a lawsuit, Dr. Shepson advocates a campaign of indoctrination to muffle the critics. Perhaps a better approach would be for the Council to respond to the issues raised. | ||
| William ,Cockayne | What idiot's would want to put a end to natural gas appliances and gasoline powered cars? Our whole infrastructure depends on heating our homes and businesses with the most cost effective ways possible. Same with cooking,hot water,clothes drying, etc. As far as electric cars go forget about that. Democrats are trying to force this fantasy on us by raising the price of fuel. The power grid is years away from being able to allow the power needed for recharging them. For billions of years the earth has had ice ages then desert conditions. This is nature not man made climate change as the democrats claim, just history. | ||
| jeffrey,vogel | . As a New Yorker, I support the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, but I have serious concerns about several of the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations. Statewide heating electrification could inadvertently lead to higher home energy costs, more frequent wintertime power outages, and greater dependence on fossil gas to support increasing demand for electricity. Unlike electric heat pumps, Bioheat fuel offers an immediate solution for decarbonizing the heating sector. Research shows higher blends of Bioheat fuel significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, heating costs and fossil fuel consumption. Local heating fuel providers are already delivering blends up to 50% biodiesel (B50), which can reduce carbon emissions by 40%, and have committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 using higher blends that require only minor adjustments to existing heating systems - not costly replacements. Bioheat fuel also supports New York farms and restaurants as biodiesel comes from renewable sources like soybeans and used cooking oil. I am glad to see the Draft Scoping Plan supports the use of Bioheat fuel in New York per state law. As of this July, all heating oil sold in New York State contains at least 5% biodiesel, increasing to 20% (B20) in 2030. Local heating fuel providers want the law to go further and support raising it to a 50% blend, and to a net-zero fuel by 2050. They are helping consumers reduce their carbon footprint at no added cost by using Bioheat fuel. Bioheat fuel offers an immediate decarbonization solution for 1.4 million oil-heated homes statewide; so why should we pay tens of thousands of dollars on electric heat pumps that will increase our state's dependence on fossil gas? The answer is that we shouldn't, and we won't. We already have a better solution in renewable Bioheat fuel. I ask that you please take these comments into consideration when formulating the Final Scoping Plan. | ||
| Angela,Hahn | Wrights Corners Cemetery Association | Natural gas is a clean energy source. There is no reason to get rid of it. America produces the cleanest fossil fuels. If they want to get away from them, it needs to be done gradually. Our power grid needs to be updated and expanded to provide the electrical power the government wants to change to. We are not ready for this change. | |
| Jerry,White | I have many concern's with our local and state leaders. With all of the crime, needless shootings. You need to put all the criminals in jail and make sure they do there time there. And to get to it he has prices. You need to stop the madness. When I talk to people, know one believes the reasons for these prices. We all believe our government is keeping the price high so we Americans will some day buy electric cars and all electric homes. I am a proud American and I like living in NYS. Do what you promised to do for our future United States of America before it is too late and there is no longer one. | ||
| Brian,Coleman | This has all the components of yet another poorly publicized/organized public service environmental initiative that has to go to an extended public comment period because no affected individuals are aware of it at all and attendance at these hearings were, at best, lackluster. Industry groups are the only source of information for concerned citizens and are rightly counseling on the inevitable class action litigations being contemplated. | ||
| Frank,Nochajski | We need to begin solving the crisis of climate change. This will not be easy and we all will have to try to move to a more correct way of living. Our children and grandchildren are worth the necessary work. Our politicians are responsable to help with this matter and some are not even trying to work to help move to solve the problem. IT WON'T BE EASY!!!!! | ||
| Marc,Silva | Climate change is real and not the most important threat to my household in the next 5-10 years. We need cheap energy to suppress inflation in order to keep my family finances sustained. Feel free to focus on innovation. Destroying the economy on green pipe dreams is only going to hurt us in the long term. Farting cows doesn’t hurt the environment. They are a key segment to reducing greenhouse gases. If NY is serious about being a green energy leader, the state would put more nuclear power plants and desalination plants near NYC and stop exporting finite resources from upstate to feed their never ending demand for more natural resources. | ||
| Rebekah,Hixson | Hi! I am a concerned citizen of New York . I am going to be it very simply that it is a absolutely terrible idea to go green and not do anything with gas. We use gas in so many ways . You are not solving any kind of problem, you see actually creating on that doesn’t need to be . So this green plan that you have concocted in your brain is a big mistake for struggling middle class citizens. | ||
| Jennifer,Shields | HANDS OFF!! Keep your greedy hands off energy policy that will cost every New Yorker $20,000 or more. The electric grid is very fragile as it is. If you increase the burden on it dramatically, as your program will, it will collapse completely, or is it your intention to force it to collapse to forward the Great Reset Agenda of Klaus Schwab and the WEF???!! Stop sucking up to your largest donors and do something that will benefit the average New Yorker, like installing solar panels on the homes of every low income New Yorker and every senior citizen living in New York, and give a 75% instant rebate to every low income New Yorker and senior citizen living in New York that buys a new Hybrid or Electric vehicle. | ||
| Teresa,Mceathron | Why would you take propane away from inside our homes so we can not heat our homes. This is so wrong on so many levels and it's going to hurt so many people. Stop trying to kill people but maybe that's part of the plan who knows. But this is wrong. We need heat and we need to be able to be warm before you take stuff away. Give stuff to people then before you do this. Think if it was you. I hope you come up with a more better way. | ||
| Amy,Curtin | I am all for electric vehicles to help the climate; however, I draw the line with forcing someone to use electric for appliances, furnaces, air conditioning, etc. I like my gas appliances...period! Electric is too expensive and I hate cooking on an electric stove. I don't think you should go this far. Thank you. | ||
| Joshua,Konheim Heffron | Riverkeeper | Save our futures and Stop climate change | |
| Charles,Baker | This is by far the worst piece of work proposed that I have ever heard of. In a state that has growing needs for agricultural land, to waste this valuable commodity on Wind and Solar Farms and the infrastucture neccessary to maintain and service them and towers to hook them to the Grid is extreme foolishness. The life of these is scant at best and extremely costly in a State that is a poor choice for Industrial growth or continued existance or the keeping of current industries. Scrap the whole idea and continue the use of clean burning and economical Natural Gas. | ||
| Robert,Hales | Elimination natural gas in our state will increase demand for electricity in the winter which is increasingly dependent on unreliable wind and solar. My solar panels produce surplus power even when my AC is running. Some solar makes sense! Eliminating fossil fuels will leave us vulnerable as Dallas was last year. This will cause suffering for many. | ||
| Robert,Meredith | There is NO such thing as “climate change” and this is more than proven if anyone wants to look at actual peer reviewed papers, so stop lying. Secondly there needs to be a push for nuclear power, they can make it beyond safe and cheap now and that is the way to go. The green agenda will never work and is just another power grab by the elite. | ||
| Brian,Coleman | Any attempt to implement changes in oil-based heat generation in single or two family houses beyond homeowner’s ability to underwrite the costs of conversion will result in multiple class action litigation against both the state and New York City. The advisory panel needs only research past plans to implement metered water programs to find how hard it will be to proceed against any or all deadlines. To proceed gradually with exception guidelines to individual homeowners is the only practical solution. | ||
| Salvatore,Ferreri | The States idiotic planning for new regulations on the use of natural gas will continue to send its population and business to other states. There is no intelligence that eliminating natural gas will save our planet or the economic future of New York State or it’s population. The increased cost to its residents is not part of the equation. Where is the State going to find the resources for increasing the use of electricity? More wind??? Atomic reactors??? How about more solar farms??? | ||
| Jennifer,Valentine | please ensure water issues are considered and accounted for in this pivotal transition to New York's sustainable future | ||
| Anthony,Casilio | What is this 'scoping' plan exactly? Are you saying no more using gas in my home? Are you nuts? Is everything going to be electric? With escalating prices as they are? Is it your intention to bankrupt us? Especially retirees? This talk of global warming is a lie. Worldwide volcanoes pour more substance into the atmosphere than humans could possibly produce. It's a lie than is financially damaging us all. Leave everything alone. | ||
| Patricia,Kovalefsky | When we first moved into our house, we had electric heat and the house was never comfortably warm. When natural gas was brought to the street, we switched to natural gas which has been a joy for years. We are more comfortable and enjoy a gas stove and fire place insert. I understand the State has recently invested substanial taxpayer funds to replace the existing distribution system. I think the State is getting ahead of itself to completely eliminate gas in favor of all electric. I think a hybrid system that encourages electric use though financial incentives is the best way to go. You are losing moderate democrats with leaving no options. | ||
| Sally,Courtright | Climate Reality Project, Divest NY, NR DC | My name is Sally Courtright and I am a retired biology teacher who lives near Albany. I taught basic climate science as it is a part of the state biology curriculum. As a retiree I am a member of Climate Reality Project, Divest NY and the NRDC. I have had numerous climate related letters to the editor published in the NY Times, the Times Union and The Washington Post. I am motivated to write in support of the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan for so many reasons. I comprehend climate science and I have children and grandchildren. If we fail to mitigate our climate crisis there will be a tsunami of insidious climate events in the coming decades I would like to address Chapter 17: Economy-wide Strategies. Two strategies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution are extremely vital. They are carbon pricing, which levies a tax on carbon pollution and cap and trade. Both of plans financially encourage lower emission choices. This option is an essential facet of our transition to clean energy. I tuned in for several of the Climate Action Council’s meetings. I was impressed with the members’ knowledge and hard work. I was impressed with their awareness of the big picture. They realized that waste was a vital component of the problem and created a committee to address it. Equally impressive is the historic Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act for which I lobbied. Honestly, I fail to understand why the Scoping Plan needs any review at all. New York has done an outstanding job of studying and planning to mitigate this very grave climate problem. We need to ignore the ignorant folks who dispense misinformation about our disrupted climate and move to implement this Scoping Plan immediately! | |
| Sandra,Zimmerman | Rockland Water Coalition/ Sierra Clyb | It is time to address decommissioning of carbon! Climate change is here and it is urgent that legislation be passed to facilitate the transition to clean energy! Rockland county has been slow to address these issues. Land use in Rockland is threat to erode the air quality in terms of huge projects that are threatening air quality as well as out wetlands | |
| jerry,davis | town of covington | This is the dumbest plan with not a chance of implementation as written. Back to the drawing board. | |
| Marta,Cabral | I support climate action and the CLCPA. We need a full and complete transition to a clean economy by 2050, with a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040 and a detailed roadmap toward a 100% electric transportation sector. We need to stop the expansion of fossil fuels immediately, and this scoping plan absolutely needs to be stronger on gas. We need a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, deadlines for phasing out dirty energy and procuring renewables, a mandate for all-electric new building construction beginning in 2024, and investment in transitioning existing homes off fossil fuels. The state needs to plan to retire and replace current fossil fuel plants, and must provide funding and support for workers affected by this transition and the communities around these plants. I strongly support Scenario 3 of the draft plan: Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion. We need to keep focusing on deploying proven renewable energy technologies and expanding battery storage. We can’t rely on hypothetical technologies like “renewable” natural gas (RNG) and carbon capture and storage, which are false solutions. This is the critical decade for building out renewable generation and shutting down fossil fuel plants, and it's crucial that we get this right. New York must set a year-by-year target for permitting new wind, solar, and battery storage. I care deeply about taking meaningful action to address the climate crisis, and the state has the potential to meet its climate targets and have a huge impact on ensuring a better future for New Yorkers through this plan, if done right. We know what needs to be done (see above!), we just need the will to do it. I remain hopeful that we can and we will get this right -- the cost of missing this opportunity is too great to think about. Please take the necessary steps during this critical window to act. Thank you. | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | New York State must establish an Office of Just Transition, controlled by the Governor, that would lead a multi-agency response to the challenge of climate change and transitioning to a decarbonized economy. NYSERDA’s $1.5 billion annual budget must be expanded by at least $125 million for a Just Transition Fund that the Office of Just Transition would administer. The office would develop and deliver training and income support programs for workers impacted by the transition; provide technical assistance and economic development support for businesses and communities to retool for new clean energy activities, products and services; and effectively implement new federal infrastructure funding and incentives as well as state labor policies to ensure high-quality job creation and economic development efforts are maximized. The office could also administer a public sector loan facility to accelerate investment in clean energy activities. Climate change is a new type of crisis facing the state, and only the governor can provide the multi-agency coordination and direction that is needed to ensure this transition is managed well. | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | It is imperative that the final version of the scoping plan focus on prioritizing afforestation and forest preservation efforts that provide maximum climate benefit over strategies designed to profit the forestry industry. Logging activity must follow a sustainable logging plan. New York must prohibit logging for carbon sequestration purposes without proven life cycle analysis that shows that the use of lumber in construction projects leads to lower net GHG emissions than the product it replaces. The use of wood feedstocks for bioenergy production must be limited or forbidden, as much more suitable feedstocks exist. Thank you! | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | |||
| Anshul ,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | Commend document uploaded. | has attachment |
| John,Conter | Local union 3 IBEW | Please reconsider the aggressive fast pace of ban natural gas I agree with reducing and eliminating it over a longer period of time as not to over burden our different system and infrastructure | |
| Yonatan ,Dejene | Local #3 | AS OUR STATE MOVES ON TO SUSTAINABLE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,I JUST WANT REMIND YOU TO SUPPORT OUR UNION AND OUR PEOPLE. ALL OF OUR MEMBERS DEPEND ON OUR TRADE TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES,WE SPENT DAYS AND NIGHTS TO MAKE SURE OUR CITY RUN SMOOTHLY DON’T LEAVE US OUT IN THE COLD NOW,PLEASE WORK WITH OUR UNIION IN BUILDING THE FUTURE NEW YORK THANKS YONATAN DEJENE | |
| Matthew,Warren | This plan is overwhelming for the general public and appears to be a power grab of Citizens' freedoms. This will limit Citizen's ability to move about the state or travel outside the state. The plan is forecasting carbon savings without the technology to back it up. Why does our governor still use a helicopter? Does it run on batteries? She could easily use an electric vehicle to go from Albany to Buffalo. She does not do this because it is not practical. The technology is not there. How much carbon does nuclear power emit? Very little, but the hypocrats shut it down. Wouldn't nuclear power be useful to charge all those batteries that will be in vehicles? Wind turbines in Lake Erie are not wanted by the Citizens, but it will be pushed down their throats. If natural gas for heating is eliminated, then more strain will be put on the power grid that was designed for 10 kW per home unit. Charging vehicles and heating homes will require a massive investment in electric upgrades. Are the health effects of magnetic fields from the power lines being considered? Climate Justice is just another program to help people that have been supported for many years. When something has been tried for so long and has not been able to accomplish its goal. It is time to try something else. Older people remember President Johnson's war on poverty. I think the real goal is to keep these people trapped in a system by not providing incentives for them to work there way out. I agree that they have poor living conditions, but then NYS social programs have failed and I do not trust NYS to do any better with this program. People are willing to make changes, but the market of supply and demand should pick the winners and losers. Hypocrat politicians recently lowered the gasoline tax to save their jobs, but over the years the taxes should have been steadily increased if they wanted Citizens to wean themselves from fossile fuels. Move hybrid vehicles would be on the road. | ||
| Benedetto ,DiVerde | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Benedetto DiVerde and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Massapequa , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Benedetto DiVerde | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | Please see comment in the uploaded file. | has attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Naomi,Lisowski | Almost 12% of New York state’s greenhouse gas emissions is from waste, much of it avoidable. In light of the current climate crisis, we need to ensure we’re doing all we can to curb mindless waste; a stronger Extended Producer Responsibility bill can help. Currently there is no EPR in place for packaging. New York generates 7 million tons of packaging waste each year, adding to landfill carbon emissions and air pollution. A tougher EPR could cut back on packaging at its source: the producer. To get ahead on plastic pollution, we need to reduce 50% of our plastic packaging by 2030. Besides volume, the packaging itself needs to be more eco-friendly. The DEC should hold producers accountable for what they use to package goods, how much they use, and whether it is recyclable or compostable—fining companies for manufacturing packaging materials that are difficult to recycle. Another oversight of the Scoping Plan is the lack of “By Request Only” legislation for single-use plastics in eating establishments. Considering the billions of tons of plastic already polluting our oceans, waterways, and even bloodstreams, we need to minimize the amount of plastic in production. The long-lasting damage a single-use item does to the environment is not worth the fleeting convenience it provides. Retail stores must provide reusable and refillable options. We do not need plastic straws, utensils, and single-serve condiments; we need legislation to coerce businesses and patrons to employ the reusable, refillable wares we already have. Lastly, New York needs a better Bottle Bill. As one of our best weapons against plastic pollution, bottle bills promise a high rate of recycling with a monetary incentive that, right now, needs an inflation update. It’s time we increase the deposit to 10 cents. The bottle bill should also include other beverages, such as wine and liquor, to minimize the number of single-use containers that get lost in the recycling stream or—worse—litter our lands. | ||
| Sascha,Swanson | We are at a crisis point and we need an aggressive timeline to stop greenhouse gases- but the current draft would have an immediate negative impact on IBEW jobs and New York State's ability to ultimately transition to fully renewable energy sources. Elected officials continue to talk up a "just transition" as a necessary part of addressing the climate crisis, however, we need to hold them accountable so that their actions match their rhetoric. The Draft Scoping Plan must: 1. Ensure there is actual growth and expansion of good-paying, union jobs in the industries most closely related to the climate crisis. 2. Have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. 3. Address its impacts and costs on all New York State residents. | ||
| Steven ,Wrubel | Ibew local#3 | We still need gas in our economy to make things work until we have established a good source of renewables to turn our climate around.hydrogen wind and solar are all things we need to build better infrastructure for. | |
| Stephen,Provenza | Thank you for transition gas system | ||
| William,McGrath | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is William McGrath and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Yonkers, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, William McGrath | ||
| Anthony,Miceli | IBEW Local 3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Anthony Miceli and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Staten Island , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Anthony Mice | |
| Carlos,Cruz | Local union #3 IBEW | Consider the economic effect the current proposed transition time frame has on workers in the industry. | |
| William,Alicea | 1994 | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is William Alicea and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in BRONX, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, William Alicea | |
| Charles,Warren | First, who has chosen this committee? Are these people balanced in their viewpoints or leaning in the direction of their own business opportunities, such as: Thomas Falcone, Dennis Elsenbeck, Gavin Donohue? I'm surprised that Donna L. DeCarolis in on this committee. Why does this committee have so much power? Place average residents on this committee. How does this committee plan to force the electrical distribution companies to radically improve the electrical infrastructure to support all this added electrical load? It took several years to get a solar company to find a location in my area that could handle the output from its system. Yet, this committee has decided to force the removal of older cars and the purchase of only zero-emission vehicles and electric-only appliances without plans for improvement to the electrical infrastructure and charging stations. What analysis has been done on how this course of action will deteriorate the lives of those people mining lithium and those that are manufacturing batteries. What about the pollution created by recycling all these batteries? Has any analysis been performed as to how your recommendations will increase pollution until the zero-emission electricity is available? I highly doubt zero-emission electricity will be feasible by 2040. Where are the details of all the analysis of the "facts" presented in the "Draft Scoping Plan"? Has your analysis been peer reviewed from non-biased representatives outside of NYS? I assume that small engine driven electric generators will also be outlawed so that when the electrical grid becomes overloaded as electric-only becomes the norm, people needing electricity for heat and health reasons will suffer or die? Why put everything into electricity? Any person with common sense knows that you need backup systems that do not use the same energy supply when something disastrous happens. I think that it is going to be overly expensive to live in NYS in the near future. | ||
| Stephen,Mark | Local Union # 3 IBEW | Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Stephen Mark and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Flushing, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. | |
| Andrew,Gillivan | IBEW #3 | I have solar in my home , it’s great . I’m trying to help our climate. I think NY should too! Get green energy done for our future ! | |
| Lynda,Schneekloth | Western New York Environmental Alliance | CAC / Western New York Environmental Alliance (WNYEA) GENERAL COMMENTS ON CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT June 2022 Submitted by Lynda Schneekloth, [email protected] on behalf of WNYEA • The WNYEA thanks NYS for creating the CAC process and all the people, institutions and agencies who generated this document. It reflects enormous effort and very good thinking. • The WNYEA in general supports Scenario 3: Accelerated Transition away from Combustion • The WNYEA is appreciative and totally supports the CLCPA focus on Disadvantaged Communities receiving significant funding to address climate impacts in environmental justice areas of the state. • The WNYEA argues that the current draft is limited by not significantly including biodiversity and natural processes as a lens for all strategies. Just as you have included the lens of justice of existing disadvantaged communities, we argue that you must also include the lens of Earth Health and biodiversity. Humans do not live on this planet alone and in truth, we are totally dependent on the fabric of live the surrounds us, nourishes us, provides us with oxygen and serves as climate moderator. And we are in the process of massive extinctions at the same time we are facing the urgent climate crisis; one cannot be addressed without the other. Carbon neutral energy is insufficient to provide a living planet for our children. We recognize that there are references to “co-benefits’ (nature, recreation, clean environment, etc.) in some of the sections but they are seldom articulated in the strategies or not mentioned at all. For example, planting trees is great but there is no mention of what kind of trees. The language should specify ‘native species of the region in some percentage (at least 50%) to support the regional ecology. We do recognize the charge to the committee is a carbon neutral economy with specific emission reductions by 2050. But we will not pass on a habitable planet without un | |
| Renee,Baptiste | I’ve attended a hearing about the draft scoping plan and I’ve heard several people say that the electrification of New York will bring equity and opportunities to the black, brown, and Native American communities by it was never mentioned precisely how. It seemed like speakers were using the words “black, brown, and native Americans” as buzz words, which will become empty promises. What will really happen is the income gap will pushed further apart if they are forced to convert their homes which cost upwards for $20,000. With inflation at an all time high, New Yorkers cannot afford a drastic change like this. I have a couple friends who installed new Furnace with Heat Pumps. Their electric bills / use increased dramatically - and they were not prepared for that. The pumps consume large amounts of electricity, so while it offsets sustainability in one area (gas / greenhouse gases), their consumption increased in another area. When a family of 5 starts having +100 $ per month, it's substantial. The focus and shared information about newest "technology" needs to be comprehensive. Good for the earth is great, but for some, at what price? Each home-owner should be fully informed, including the use of electricity to run the system, overall. Secondly, the nearly 6% of black and brown Americans gas industry employs will be swiftly financially devastated by a ban. So if equity for black and brown people is a talking point for this program, socioeconomic advancement should be at the forefront, instead of their possible consumption of this “new energy” that will fatten the pockets of a select few. New York is not ready to make a dramatic switch. The investment for the infrastructure required to run successfully would cripple tax payers, unless the plan is to move forward with a subpar system. When a crisis arises, New York will be scambling like Texas in their ice storm. We can be better equipped by drafting a gradual shift overtime instead of immediately. | ||
| Martin ,Hochenberger | Local union #3 INEW | ||
| Orlando ,Cintron | Make it happen our future depends on it | ||
| Will,Barclay | NYS Assembly | ||
| Loren,Westcott | The proposed plan for New Yorkers to change all heating devices to electricity is ludicrous. This will create an undue hardship on many rural communities that rely on other heating sources, such as natural gas, LP gas, coal,wood, etc. our current electrical grid will not support such overload in it’s current state. This is a very poor plan that has not been thoroughly thought out, to be implemented in a feasible way. I strongly oppose this plan, and hope that our elected officials will listen to these public comments, instead of these comments just falling on deaf ears. My past experience with public comments, is that the minds of the politicians have already been made up before the comments are even read. Let’s hope that this is not the case in this matter. | ||
| James,Brew | Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc. | Attached please find the Comments of Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc. | has attachment |
| Kevin,Porter | IBEW LU 3 | Ensure there is actual growth and expansion of good-paying, union jobs in the industries most closely related to the climate crisis. Have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. Address its impacts and costs on all New York State residents. | |
| Brian,Smith | Citizens Campaign for the Environment | ||
| Hector,Salgado | IBEW LOCAL#3 | Good day committee members, Please adjust a transition of helping our climate into becoming better green conscious. Just removing natural gas is not the only answer. We need to fuse gas out by doing more economic studies. Please assist on a better transition. | |
| Tyler,Hines | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Tyler Hines and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Commack, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Tyler Hines | ||
| Carl,Paladino | Ellicott Development co. | Science tells us there is no such thing as man made climate change. It is all natural and you people are participant in a major hoax and scam of the American taxpayer. | |
| Jon,Moore | L5E, LLC | ||
| Todd,Farr | The phasing out of fossil fuels is ridiculous. Natural gas is very clean. The 10X cost impact to every business or home owner is extremely short sited. The electrical grid can not handle the increased load. Its barely suitable for the current electrical load. If this rule goes thru this will force my NYS people to move out of the state. Todd Farr | ||
| Kara,Chitty | The goals stated in the scoping plan are unreasonable and will make energy less affordable and less available. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. This plan emphasizes transitioning to energy sources (wind and solar) that are expensive, intermittent, and unreliable. Thus it is a bad plan. Fossil fuels are good, not bad. They are high density, abundant, and reliable. Wind turbines and solar panels are devastating to the environment. They require huge swaths of land. Rare earth metals must be mined and then must be disposed of when the turbine and solar panels are no longer effective (efficiency decreases with every passing year). The disposal of toxic solar panels and batteries is damaging to the environment. The need for rare earth metals increases our reliance on foreign entities with whom we are in competition or with whom we have an adversarial relationship (such as China). Do we really want to give China the ability to shut down our energy by withholding the necessary rare earth metals? The construction, delivery, installation, and decommissioning of wind turbines and solar panels uses an excessive amount of energy. If carbon emissions were really the concern of the Climate Action Council, then nuclear energy would be on the table to discuss. Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and produces no carbon. However, nuclear power is not on the table. Why not? | ||
| Matthew,Tomich | Energy Vision | Thank you for the opportunity to provide detailed comments on the critically important Draft Scoping Plan. Please see attached c over letter and detailed input. Please don't hesitate to be in touch with questions. Best, Matt | has attachment |
| John,Kapusta | I commend the Climate Action Council for developing this plan. The country and the world is watching what we do to address climate change now. Climate policy is not just about the future: it is about building a just world for everyone alive today. I want to recommend that the CAC adopt a plan that includes a price on carbon, a carbon fee and dividend program, a carbon price start low and rise gradually each year. I also wish to note that carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Thank you. | ||
| AMY,PARADISE | 1)As to timing 30 years have been wasted during which time both our economy and our environment have been ravaged. This plan is huge and comprehensive which is good. Its application sadly will be much impacted by local political agendas. The designation of what is a disadvantaged community will be especially important. it should begin with red lined areas defined by old mortgage banking maps, include areas known to be contaminated by industrial pollutants, include areas where the census data shows gross income inequality by comparison to neighboring areas, and as suggested also include attention to housing cost. the difficulty is that in Hampton Bays climate action runs head long into affordable housing issues. this most densely developed area of town of Southampton stands to suffer from increased density because the incorporated parts of town need not participate and, it is adjacent to a railroad. The wealthy out here own the water front and routinely defy any control of their" right" to use waterfront property for their own selfish pleasure. How does the state plan on making the wealthy comply with new needs an standards? 2) Electrification is focused entirely in the wrong way. it is set up to favor and guarantee profit to the now deregulated Utility companies. the objective should not be to harden and improve the grid it should be to reduce its size to a minimum by making buildings energy independent. wind or solar with Battery storage or passive measures..or any useful combination. I suggest that people find and study houses like mine built on the cusp when electricity was most limited in use. 3 bedrooms 1.5 baths my electric bill is less than 100$ a month. I do use oil steam heat.. I burned all of 600 gallons of fuel last heating season. i rarely use my room air conditioners. Frankly this approach increase personal freedom, reduces government interference in personal life and is the best means of promoting resilience to intense weather events. | ||
| Elizabeth,Rounds | Town of Binghamton | ||
| RICHARD,McSPEDON | LOCAL 3 IBEW | It is my belief that the time has come to be leaders in the energy revolution. The future for our children depend on it. We need to make every effort to; decrease our depenance of fossil fuels and encourage by every means possible great effeciency in our buildings and homes as well as create a new system of transportation. A sytem that is clean and effecient.embrace solar ,wind and hydro energy alternatives. In doing so we can create new growth in local manufacturings and building trades in addition to the constant science and research market. | |
| Megan,Pliscofsky | NYS Building & Construction Trades Council | ||
| Vicki,Crossett | The upfront cost of converting to renewable energy will be far too much for the average person. Furthermore, renewable energy has proven not to be enough on it’s own to power society. This proposal is far too extreme. While we can supplement fossil fuels with renewable energy, the reality of getting rid of fossil fuels altogether, and relying solely on renewable energy is not realistic at all. This will cause many more individuals, families and businesses to leave NY. | ||
| Garrett,Christy | I believe people and our government should be transitioning to more climate friendly energy sources, but doing so at a pace that is good for all people. | ||
| Bill,Manning | Local 3 ibew | Ensure actual growth and expansion of good union jobs Have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewables using all options for power generation Address it’s impacts and costs for all nys residents | |
| Anthony ,Calascibetta | IBEW Local Union 3 | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Anthony Calascibetta and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Staten island, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Anthony Calascibetta | |
| Judith,Myerson | Please see uploaded file for Waste Sector Comment. | has attachment | |
| Harry,Dann | |||
| Humberto,Restrepo | Local 3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Humberto Restrepo and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Lynbrook , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, includ | |
| James,Bua | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is James Bua and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Baldwin, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, James Bua | ||
| Andrew,Faber | What a joke!!! You're going to force private citizens to remove Natural Gas from their homes in upstate New York and replace it with UNRELIABLE, waste producing and environment consuming "renewables"! Do you really think current electric heating is going to be sufficient for our below zero winters? You're really not going to allow the sale of certain vehicles in the upcoming years to private citizens because you know what's best for all of us? Where are the nearly 1 million acres of land that your going to consume for these initiatives currently? Are they are state parks or the farm lands that currently feed the entirety of NYC and the rest of the world? What are you going to do with the Solar panels that go bad and wind turbines micro fibers that need to be replaced every 15 years, or the Lithium that is used to store these tens of thousands of Megawatts? Are you just going to give those "renewables" to New Jersey to deal with or are you going to destroy more of our farm land? Push for your own State and local government buildings, in particular the Governors Mansion, to move to this "100% electric" first, then let us know how it goes. If it's great and people can still provide warmth and food to their kids at even a comparable cost I'm sure the transition wont need to be mandated. Build Nuclear, continue to to put money into the development of renewables (like making them actually good for the environment instead of creating a lithium and micro plastic issue in the near future) Move our government owned buildings and vehicles to all electric first, address any issues with RnD. Make it actually affordable and worth the transition first. Compete with the LNG companies, do not outlaw them. Support New Yorkers not your agenda!!! | ||
| Susan,Freiman | Topic: Request for the scoping plan and NY State to provide special funding for multi-faceted projects that magnify GHG reductions and speed our way to achieving CLCPA goals. Multi-faceted projects can accomplish numerous CLCPA goals simultaneously and bring efficiencies into the transition to renewable energy. One multi-faceted project type is the First Responder EV Resiliency Zones concept. These off-grid capable EV charging areas combine hyper-local solar/wind, energy storage, EV charging and microgrids and promote community health and safety when the grid is down. Another multifaceted project type pairs electrification of building heating/hot water with off-grid adjacent solar plus storage; in this project type the off-grid solar doesn’t replace grid-based energy, it supplements it. There are additional examples of multifaceted projects that also deploy numerous GHG lowering techs into each project. Multi-faceted projects require complex funding; financing is needed for every part of the project. Under the current funding dynamics, it is highly unlikely that a multifaceted project would ever get grants for all of its components - yet that is exactly what is needed for these efficient, GHG reducing, projects to move ahead. To facilitate deployment of multi-faceted GHG reducing projects, we ask NY State to institute a new grant category specifically for multi-faceted projects. In this new grant category, selected recipients would receive grants for all parts of their projects at the same time. This will facilitate projects with multiple co-benefits, will encourage stacking of solutions, can bring efficiencies into preliminary studies, purchasing and construction, will speed up GHG reductions, and will ramp up our ability to quickly meet our CLCPA goals. | ||
| Susan,Freiman | Topic: Request to add to the scoping plan: Promote solar on existing built environment sites that are already classified by the DEC as automatic Type II SEQRA for solar arrays under 25 acres, request for NY State to provide statewide interactive map of these sites. Existing parking lots, rooftops, remediated brown fields, closed landfills, highway medians and rights of way, and power and gas line rights of way, are some examples of existing built environments/existing disturbed locations that can be used to host multiple projects that reduce GHGs. The NY State DEC has listed many existing built environments/existing disturbed locations as automatic Type II SEQR for solar arrays under 25 acres. Yet few municipalities, citizens and businesses know about this, nor do they know how to evaluate these automatic Type II SEQR sites for potential solar generation. We ask NY State to develop a statewide, publicly available, interactive map that provides the location and solar generation potential for all automatic Type II SEQR solar sites under 25 acres as per the DEC regs for solar on existing built environment/existing disturbed locations. Link to the exact DEC regs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F9X5J5HJhCiFGi0f-_J1iKh9uUUNUYTh/view?usp=sharing. The tech for this type of mapping is mature and has been used by other states and municipalities. The entire state of Connecticut and Long Island have already developed maps that include parking lot and roof top overlays. Here are links to those maps: Long Island Solar Roadmap, Parking Lot Solar Map Layer: https://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d61dfb3bad544dbea16397e08f084ff1 Connecticut Parking Lot Potential Map: https://pace4ct.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c752690fa4d14505b9e0bc51efd3bee6 Thank you. | ||
| James,Simon | The Town of Yates, NY | Please see attached. | has attachment |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | Topic: Request for scoping plan inclusion, and state financing of, a work around for distribution grid limitations by pairing off-grid DER solar and energy storage with geothermal heating/cooling. We must quickly develop renewable energy including DER solar. Existing built environment locations are capable of generating a lot of DER solar energy. Yet local distribution grids were not designed to carry all the solar power that our existing built environment locations can generate. The good news is there is a work around to this distribution grid hosting problem: pair geothermal heating/hot water with adjacent, off-grid DER solar plus energy storage. The off-grid solar does not replace the grid-based electricity that the building uses – the off-grid solar supplements the grid-based energy, providing some of the increases in electricity that are needed to power the geothermal heating/hot water. The building now has two independent electricity sources; the main source remains the local distribution grid, with supplemental energy coming from the adjacent off-grid solar plus storage. There are no grid interconnection fees, or time for interconnection approvals. This works around the problems of insufficient distribution grid hosting capacity and facilitates rapid build out of DER solar. These projects do need special switches to help the geothermal system toggle between the off-grid solar (via the energy storage system) and the distribution grid, and another special switch to prevent the solar energy from ever uploading to the grid. This multi-faceted project combines at least three GHG lowering techs and can be built and be fully operational when the local distribution grid is not able to host the power from the solar panels. We need to rapidly convert to geothermal and also rapidly build out solar. We ask NY State to facilitate this kind of integrated system with incentives, technical assistance and multi-faceted project grants. | |
| Linda,Cohen | Protectors of Pine Oak Woods | As Staten Island's oldest volunteer environmental preservation organization, Protectors of Pine Oak Woods has been involved in saving forests on Staten Island for nearly 50 years. Our 1000 + members understand the value of forests and their role in combatting the effects of climate change such as: 1. As forests grow, their trees take in carbon from the air and store it . This “carbon sink function” of forests slows down climate change. 2. Forests also help absorb storm waters. Increasing storm waters are predicted to get worse with climate change. During Superstorm Sandy, Staten Island suffered tremendous damage with many drownings. Of the 53 deaths reported in NYS , Staten Island had at least 21 deaths. As we are expecting harsher storms in the coming years, the role that forests play in storing storm water is paramount. 3.Trees release moisture that cools the air around them. With warmer temperatures expected from climate change, we need to save every inch of forest possible. 4. Studies show links to increased air pollution as climate change proceeds. Many SI residents live in close proximity to the chemical plants and refineries across the Arthur Kill in Linden, New Jersey, which release pollutants into the air. SI residents already suffer from high rates of respiratory illnesses. Since trees are known to filter out pollutants from the air, we need our forests to help purify the air. Therefore, Protectors of Pine Oak Woods supports AF5- Support Local Communities in Forest Protection and Management and AF6- Create a New York Forest. We also support LU4 -Protect and Restore wetlands. Wetlands act like a giant sponge. Many of the State’s wetlands are forested and like forests, they absorb extra flood waters, and slow down the movement of this water to surrounding areas - areas where people may live. Destruction of many of our east shore wetlands on Staten Island due to development pressures increased flood water damage during Superstorm Sandy. | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | Topic: Request for scoping plan to specifically support and encourage nonpartisan projects. With today’s political climate, it is im portant to develop nonpartisan projects that can appeal across many aspects of the political spectrum. Nonpartisan projects can be easier for municipalities, agencies and stakeholders to support, approve and build. One example of a nonpartisan project is the First Responder Electric Vehicle Resiliency Zones concept. When built as intended, First Responder EV Resiliency Zones will lower GHGs, but because these special off-grid capable EV charging areas are built to assist with community health and safety when the grid is down, they can be built without ever discussing GHGs, or climate. Please note that for the purpose of this concept, a first responder is anyone who needs to get to work, or to their volunteer station, to help with community health and safety when the electric grid is down. Some of the people included are those who work/volunteer in hospitals, nursing/rehab facilities, pharmacies, USPS, animal care, fire, ambulance, paramedics, municipal emergency personnel and others. See attached one page document for more details. | has attachment |
| pamela,a witmer | UGI Energy Services | Attached are comments to the draft Scoping Plan for the transportation sector | has attachment |
| Rebecca,LaBorde | The goals stated in the scoping plan are unreasonable and will make energy less affordable and less available. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. This plan emphasizes transitioning to energy sources (wind and solar) that are expensive, intermittent, and unreliable. Thus it is a bad plan. Fossil fuels are good, not bad. They are high density, abundant, and reliable. | ||
| Joel,Duguay | Many in upstate New York depend on some form of solid fuel heat due to high electricity costs and high gas and fuel oil costs. This solid fuel heat can be coal but is more likely wood burning appliances such as wood stoves, wood furnaces and wood boilers. Many in upstate New York will not give up these devices. I am included in this list. What is the plan to deal with these devices? | ||
| Barbara,Davidson | DND Properties, LLC | I live and own properties in Essex County NY. Although I have one building that is all electric, other buildings that I have acquired and renovated rely on propane for cooking and oil for heating due to a variety of reasons, not least of which is the expense associated with upgrading the electrical service to the buildings to accommodate a transition to all electric. In fact, in the areas I operate, there is not enough infrastructure available to do a widescale upgrade of electrical service to transition to electric heat pumps, electric ranges, water heaters and provide for the charging of electric vehicles. Most of the single family homes that are older than 1950 have 60A services which would need to be upgraded to 200A in order to accommodate the transitions you are proposing. Who would be responsible for paying for that increase? I certainly do not have the resources to perform those upgrades and even if I had, the cost of upgrading would remove my properties from the category of "affordable" housing to something else since I would have to find a way to recoup the investments made. Perhaps NY would prefer to see me abandon those properties and cause an even more severe housing shortage. As far as electric vehicles go, the vast majority of my tenants make less than $50,000 annually. They shop carefully for used vehicles and keep them on the road long past most of you would consider keeping a vehicle. How are they supposed to afford the cost of an electric vehicle when the "least" expensive start at around $40,000 or almost a whole year's worth of income? On top of that, those that live in one of my apartment buildings designated "historical" have no means of charging their vehicles. Our Town has recently been told they have a grant to install two charging stations. How will that service the 12 occupants of just one of my buildings that each own a vehicle? There is also the challenge of operating in harsh winter conditions. This is not workable. | |
| Sandra,Langer | This plan is going to force people to move out of state we can not afford more taxes, more cost and I feel this is not in the best intrest of the people of this state | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | |||
| Anshul,Gupta | |||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | Economy-wide carbon pricing could help ensure that we meet CLCPA’s goals and are able to fund its implementation without an undue burden on our economy. I strongly urge the council to recommend adopting a price on carbon in its final plan. Countless economists and scientists say that it is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. I recommend a carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. The remainder of the revenue can help support the initiatives such as electrification and weatherization of LMI residences and public EVSE installations, etc. Carbon pricing is preferred over many other alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. I strongly recommend that carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs would be higher relative to fossil energy costs. This will have the undesirable impact of actually discouraging other key CAC recommendations on the electrification of New York’s building and transportation sectors, resulting in slower adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings and transportation. New York has the opportunity to set a nationwide precedent in creating a blueprint for climate action that provides a just transition for all. We look forward to seeing the Climate Action Council capitalize on this opportunity in the Final Scoping Plan. | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Hotshot Hotwires | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Hotshot Hotwires | ||
| Robin,Hansen | NY is so advanced and progressive as it is. I am concerned about all the Solar Farms popping up on land that could be utilized for planting of food crops. What happens to the panels when they expire? Where will they be disposed of? I hope that we take small steps toward reducing our carbon emissions to allow for time to see how implementation could actually have to be slowed so as not to rock the boat too rapidly! We need to actively stay engaged with the implementation & be prepared to review, re-evaluate and make any changes to continue to make the process be successful without putting unnecessary strains on current systems. | ||
| Mina,Barker | I urge you not to enact these policies being advocated that would depend on expensive and unreliable wind power and solar power (problem with rare metals used to make panels and their future disposal). In addition, I urge you to not deprive citizens of oil and gas power. Heat pumps are inadequate and expensive. I have cooked all my life with a gas stove and do not want to switch to electric. New Yorkers should retain their right to use the power they choose and not be forced by the state to use expensive, unproven methods that will backfire and create more problems than they solve. I am a lifelong New Yorker, but if these restrictive policies are instituted I will be leaving the state of my birth! | ||
| Xanthe,Plymale | Zero Waste Capital District | I had the opportunity to speak at the in-person public hearings in Albany, NY, but I would also like to submit a written form of my comments to the Scoping Draft Plan. Overall, I am very impressed with the plan and I believe that full electrification is the best approach for our collective health and economy. 1) My first concern lies in the "waste to energy" , or waste incineration, programs mentioned in the draft scoping plan. These facilities are incompatible with climate action and climate justice. Most trash incinerators are located and built within marginalized communities and low-income housing. New York State incinerators are known to produce much more cancer causing air pollutants than other forms of power generation. A powerful example of my point lies within the ANSWERS plant (in Albany). Though it is now closed, incomplete burns and toxic air pollutants plagued the community of Sheridan Hollow for years, and I fear promotion of waste-to-energy schemes will only repeat past mistakes. 2) My second concern relates to the beneficial use of biosolids, and the promotion of codigestion of food scraps with sewage sludge. All biosolids, comprised of sewage sludge, contain high levels of PFAs, the 'forever chemical'. PFAs pose a real danger to human health, particularly the endocrine system, and they are still understudied. The act of combining food scraps with PFA contaminated biosolids renders those food scraps unusable. The beneficial use of codigested materials in New York State largely hinges on land application, especially on agricultural land. We have already seen the disastrous impact of PFA contamination on farms and food systems within state of Maine, which has approved 100 million to attempt to remediate this contamination. If New York continues the land application of PFA contaminated biosolids, I believe New York will face a similar environmental and economic crisis. | |
| William,Safee | The belief that the use of natural gas, petroleum and nuclear energy is going to make the earth uninhabitable is controversial. It's unreasonable in a democratic republic to force radical changes to our way of life without persuading the vast majority of The People that it is necessary. We are a capitalist country and state. We must maintain our commitment to economic freedom and our support of wealth producing commerce and industry in whatever we do. We as a state, country and world are not desperate to make a radical shift in our energy economy. The world is not dying or disintegrating. Carbon dioxide remains at less than .01 percent of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is necessary to support all plant life. And fluctuations in the average temperature are driven almost completely by the Sun's fluctuations in energy output. In other words, slow down and let's use our brains. | ||
| Ron,Burdick | N/A | Ambition is one thing. You can't do anything until you totally upgrade the grid. Don't say it, do it. Mega bucks and years. And then if you do you will have to have more fossil fuel generators and/or plants to generate the electricity to build this. Okay, solar? CNY is the worst place in the country for that. Clouds and snow will always hamper it. That isn't taken into consideration on long term cost recovery. We will never recoup what we put in. And the environment will completely be obliterated with all the acreage taken up. It's as bad as drilling. | |
| Tennesha,Murdock | I live in rural upstate NY. My house as well as those of nearly ALL of my family members and friends are heated by wood stoves. Burning firewood IS A RENEWABLE SOURCE OF ENERGY - and heat! Nearly ALL RURAL upstate homes are heated this way. It is not only a renewable source of energy but a CHEAPER source! I would go broke having to pay for fuel oil or gas. I just could not afford it. I am a single mother and eligible for HEAP every year! Heap pays for the wood I need to get through the winter season. It is only a one time payment of a little over $500 to the wood vendor but it would cost me 6 times that amount to pay for fuel or gas to heat my house throughout the winter! HEAP is not going to cover that cost! And I cannot afford that! Neither can most of us upstate New Yorkers who heat our homes this way. It is simply not feasible!!! Not to mention if the electricity goes out. Those of us who heat with a wood stove are guaranteed heat even if the power goes out, and I have lived through enough winters to know there have been times the electricity has been off for days or weeks after a bad enough storm. RURAL NY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE POPULATED CITIES! especially NYC area. What may work for southern super populated counties in the state is not going to work for rural upstate! Your goals for the environment may be good and I do agree with them, but you must consider ALL New Yorkers - their locations, lives, situations. Certain changes proposed will completely not work or be feasible for Upstate Rural New Yorkers. There are more cows and fields up here than people! Please consider at length the vast burdens and hardships you will be placing on those of us who live in rural NY. We are New Yorkers! and we too should have a say and not be subject to a one size fits all model. What may work for downstate or densely populated city areas is not not what is going to work for rural NY. | ||
| Denise,Willard | The goals stated in the scoping plan are unreasonable and will make energy less affordable and less available. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. This plan emphasizes transitioning to energy sources (wind and solar) that are expensive, intermittent, and unreliable. Thus it is a bad plan. Fossil fuels are good, not bad. They are high density, abundant, and reliable. Wind turbines and solar panels are devastating to the environment. They require huge swaths of land. The turbines leak oil from the generators (nacelles) down the towers and I am concerned as to why the NYSDEC is allowing this. No man-made machine is going ro stop mother nature or stop the climate from changing, the climate has been changing since the beginning of time, long before the Industrial Revolution. Being from New York, you do know how the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes were formed, correct? Wait till all the farm fields are filled with black solar panels, that is when we will see global warming. Rare earth metals must be mined and then must be disposed of when the turbine and solar panels are no longer effective (efficiency decreases with every passing year). The disposal of toxic solar panels and batteries is damaging to the environment. The need for rare earth metals increases our reliance on foreign entities with whom we are in competition or with whom we have an adversarial relationship (such as China). Do we really want to give China the ability to shut down our energy by withholding the necessary rare earth metals? The construction, delivery, installation, and decommissioning of wind turbines and solar panels uses an excessive amount of energy. If carbon emissions were really the concern of the Climate Action Council, then nuclear energy would be on the table to discuss. Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and produces no carbon. However, nuclear power is not on the table. Why not? | ||
| Russell,Becker | Rural Areas depend on propane, fuel oil and wood for affordable heat, power during blackouts, and energy for appliances. Electric supply is not stable enough to handle the forced demand of this plan. It would cost my family 20 to 35k$ to change and it wouldn't be sustainable. Electric vehicles don't have the capacity for winter emergencies and long haul towing and traveling. Solar panels, wind power blades, and battery materials are all hazardous waste with no plan to handle them.Implement the plan in your NYC, no one in upstate cares what happens there anyway and it will fail. | ||
| David ,Perkins | Lehigh Hanson, Inc., North American H eadquarters | Please see attached comment letter. | has attachment |
| Kimmarie,Brown | Off shore turbines have been proven to be detrimental to birds..bats..the ecosystem and the fishing industry. Solar farms also have problems with toxic waste. For this plan to work these things need to be considered or the alternatives to fossil fuel will become just as a much an environmental problem. Much care needs to be taken to avoid this. Let's not solve a problem by creating another. Let's talk about using less energy balanced with sustainable sources. | ||
| Elizabeth,McLaren | The Draft Scoping Plan has described many different sectors in which we will all need to work to cut emissions and to prevent unnecessary climate change. Reading the Draft Scoping Plan gave me insight into challenges I’d never considered, and I appreciate the work that went into it. One component not expressly called out is a comprehensive plan for general education, including how individual actions can impact climate change. There is no reason that people should intuitively understand what the changes outlined in the Draft Scoping would personally mean day to day. Unlike COVID, successes in our fight against climate change will not be readily seen in Johns Hopkins dashboards, where we can admire our county’s 7-day rolling average in emissions reduction. We will not look around and see everyone wearing masks and know that we are all working together. We will (probably) not hear daily briefings from our governor to tell us what the state is doing and what they are asking us to do. It will not be easy to show people that we’re moving the needle and that their expense and inconvenience and uncertainty is doing something good. We need to educate at a micro and macro level, and to consistently reinforce the message. At a micro level, tools like Google Flight’s emissions %, and Unilever’s carbon labels help consumers to make better choices. At a macro level, we need to train people to recognize the marathon, and to adapt behavior as technology changes and as we change the world. The Scoping Plan must outline a flexible mechanism for educating the populace. One that can educate and inform people on progress across all industries and locations. One that can evolve as the message evolves. One that will make progress visible to the people who may be asked to pay more, to live inconveniently, and do things that seem arbitrary. Otherwise, we can’t expect that people will remember that it’s everyone’s job to reverse climate change. Thank you. | ||
| Ray,Condo | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Ray Condo and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in EAST ELMHURST, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Ray Condo | ||
| Rich,F | Bronxville Lodge | Fines should be imposed as they do in NYC for non-compliance, especially to buildings and homes that do not upgrade their windows. | |
| Jean,Parus | Our current emission levels are quite low. This climate action plan seems unrealistic and political rather than a reasoned approach enacted over time. It has been a gigantic waste of time and money. Please do not do this. New York residents do not need this. We need less of endless bills passed that enslave the citizens and more creative ideas; businesses seem better at this than the CAC! Local governments at the town and county level know what they need and know what the citizens can pay - especially after the pandemic. This ill-considered overkill needs to be halted before the state goes bankrupt. | ||
| Fran,Sharp | I believe that this is too ambitious and unrealistic. I Believe we should be using all our resources at our disposal to keep the prices down on all fronts. There are going to be people that are not going to be able to purchase an electric vehicle by 2035. And... the cost to switch a home over to complete electric would put home owners back in debt if they are mortgage free or worse further in debt if they are so carrying a mortgage. | ||
| Mark,Chamberlin | I am in complete disagreement with forcing existing homeowners to replace their natural gas furnaces at a cost ranging from $20,000 - $40,000. This is five to eight times the cost of new natural gas furnace. My opinion would be different if the cost was comparable to a new natural gas furnace. People work hard to maintain and payoff their homes and it would be unfair to ask them to take out a home equity loan to cover the costs and incur additional debt. I will recommend to my child, relatives and friends to seriously consider whether if it would be worth it to purchase a home in New York State if this mandate goes into effect. I also believe this mandate will disproportionally effect homeowners of less means. | ||
| Cynthia,Fredrick | Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the CLCPA Draft Scoping Plan. As you are well aware, our state, our nation, and our planet are facing the extremely negative consequences of our past behaviors, and we have very little time left to rectify this situation. I am an environmental artist, and did a piece on "Global Warming" in 1992; scientists at that time were already predicting a dire future if we did not deal with the excess carbon being spewed into the atmosphere. We did not, and the results of our inaction are now only too clear. I urge you to stand firm on the mandate given you by the Legislature, the Governor, and the people of NYS to fully implement the Plan in a way that will insure the success of its intent. To do things halfway and to delay further the absolutely critical (but painful) steps needed to reach our goals will only compound the miseries of climate change. By approving the strongest plan possible, you will have done a great service not only to us New Yorkers, but to people in every state. I moved here from Indiana four years ago; it is impossible to even imagine something like the CLCPA being initiated there. But the many concerned individuals all over that state will be greatly inspired and energized by what we are accomplishing, and hopefully at some point they too will be successful in their work. Specifically, I support the following: * Scenario 3 of the DSP - accelerated electrification and very limited combustion of alternative fuels; a complete transition to a clean energy economy by 2050, a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040, and a detailed road map to fully-electrified transportation. * Stricter regulations on gas use in all sectors, a clear moratorium on new fossil fuels plants, a clear deadline for dirty energy phase-out and for providing renewables. * A just transition for workers, and a full consideration of the needs of disadvantaged communities. Thank you again. | ||
| TIMOTHY,KENT | self | We need equitable sharing of the costs of much needed grid upgrades between developer and utility and NY state, including applying any Federal funding to do so. We need to ensure renewable energy infrastructure with storage precedes beneficial electrification to avoid burning more fossil fuels if demand increases before renewable energy is in place. | |
| Angela,Ricotta | The enthusiasm to be a leader in improvements is laudable. I see several pieces of legislation proposed that are impatient to get going, even faster than this scoping plan (S.6841/A.8431, S.8198, S.5939/A 6761). The risks of unintended consequences is great. Early failures can jeopardize the trust of the citizens and the success that can come with careful planning and timely implementation. Please see the attached comments. (prior submittal lacked attachment) | has attachment | |
| Angela,Ricotta | The enthusiasm to be a leader in improvements is laudable. I see several pieces of legislation proposed that are impatient to get going, even faster than this scoping plan (S.6841/A.8431, S.8198, S.5939/A 6761). The risks of unintended consequences is great. Early failures can jeopardize the trust of the citizens and the success that can come with careful planning and timely implementation. Please see attached comments. | ||
| Kimberly,Schaffer | Power for Economic Prosperity | ||
| Melvin,Klein | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Melvin Klein and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Valley Stream, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Melvin Klein | ||
| NJ,B | To Whom it may concern. Why isnt anyone talking about how the components of “clean” energy are manufactured, how the materials are sourced and where the materials are sourced? What about decommissioning the components? If carbon emissions were really the concern of the Climate Action Council, then nuclear energy would be on the table to discuss. Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and produces no carbon. However, nuclear power is not on the table. Why not? We need to also consider the negative effects on what is being labeled @clean” energy. | ||
| Laura,Cheatham | I'm voicing my support to phase out dirty energy and procure renewables. Rather than adding new fossil fuel power plants, I believe that what New York really needs is to retrofit existing homes which will make our homes better, safer, as well as helping our health in the long run as we combat climate change. I've personally suffered from upper respiratory illnesses that are linked to air pollution and feel strongly that when we make choices that benefit the environment, we are protecting the health of our people. I urge all relevant parties to think critically about the future we want. | ||
| John,Pelham | Our electrical grid as it is now would not support such a change. Natural gas or propane seem a better alternative to coal or wood which many households in rural NY now use. Who would pay for changing all of these homes from natural gas or propane to electric? What fuel would be used to generate this massive increase in electric? Would the infrastructure that is in place and the thousands of employees that service it just go away? | ||
| William,Hilts | I would like to comment on the approach that is being taken, without looking at the big picture as to the potential ramifications of what could happen to our Great Lakes and our agricultural lands. Our Great Lakes, with 20 percent of the world's freshwater, will be our salvation in the future. We must protect it at all costs. Do NOT put in wind turbines that will negatively impact fish and wildlife. Wind turbines should be used in areas that do not have any other use. Solar farms, too. Using existing agricultural lands for solar farms is a waste of good land. We should do everything we can to protect our fertile land. There should also be a way to provide input from the local communities in relations to wind and solar farms. The new siting committee meetings no long allow for public input. It sounds like we are just going to get some of these ideas hammered home with no or very little input. We should be taking a more serious look at the long term impacts and how they will affect our children | ||
| James,Sacco | Professional Engineer | Attached is a copy of my comments in a letter form, and specific comments on Chapters 2, 4 and 5. Contact me if you have any qu estions or comments. James A. Sacco II, PE 6944 Creekview Drive Lockport, NY 14094 Phone: 716-799-9992 Email: [email protected] | has attachment |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | Please see uploaded file. | has attachment |
| David,Baer | I am totally against this proposal to require homeowners to install electric heating in the near future. I have NYSEG for my electric utility. The electric costs are extremely high. Their grid is unreliable in the rural area that I live in; so much so that I have had to purchase a gasoline powered generator to insure that I can keep my natural gas furnace and refrigerator running during extended electrical outages. My generator will provide enough power for my furnace blower motor. It would not power a heat pump. To summarize: 1. My electric provider is both expensive and unreliable. How does a heat pump run when there is no electric power? 2. My natural gas provider is reasonably priced and I have never had a supply issue. 3. The cost of a heat pump system that will work in the winter temperatures at my location (I have seen it 35 degrees below zero) is cost prohibitive for me. I have too high of an income to get the free systems you will provide for poor people, but not enough to be able to realistically afford a heat pump system for winter heat on my fixed income from Social Security and my pension. 4. There is not enough manufacturing capacity to produce the heat pumps you propose to require, nor are there enough contractors to install them. 5. I anticipate that there will be more and larger increases in electric rates from NYSEG as their Spanish owner, Iberdrola S.A, continues to struggle with their bond payments. And why this sale was allowed in the first place is beyond me. Why do NY rate payers have to bail out Iberdrola's failing Brasil operations? 6. If my natural gas furnace fails in the middle of winter I can have it fixed or replaced in a couple of days. I do not think that is the case if I am forced to purchase and install an air heat pump system. I know for certain a geo heat pump system could not be installed in a timely fashion. 7. Given the above, should your proposals become law, my best option would be to move out of state | ||
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | ||
| Arlene,Christopherson | The goals stated in the scoping plan are unreasonable and will make energy less affordable and less available. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. This plan emphasizes transitioning to energy sources (wind and solar) that are expensive, intermittent, and unreliable. Thus it is a bad plan. Fossil fuels are good, not bad. They are high density, abundant, and reliable. Wind turbines and solar panels are devastating to the environment. They require huge swaths of land. Rare earth metals must be mined and then must be disposed of when the turbine and solar panels are no longer effective (efficiency decreases with every passing year). The disposal of toxic solar panels and batteries is damaging to the environment. The need for rare earth metals increases our reliance on foreign entities with whom we are in competition or with whom we have an adversarial relationship (such as China). Do we really want to give China the ability to shut down our energy by withholding the necessary rare earth metals? The construction, delivery, installation, and decommissioning of wind turbines and solar panels uses an excessive amount of energy. If carbon emissions were really the concern of the Climate Action Council, then nuclear energy would be on the table to discuss. Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and produces no carbon. However, nuclear power is not on the table. Why not? | ||
| Blair,Page | While there are many important goals in the climate plan that can help build a more sustainable future, please be sure to project out over several iterations the likely and potential primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. consequences of the decisions that the Council makes to do a proper cost-benefit analysis ahead of implementation. Just as a healthy climate/ecosystem is essential for well-being, so is local and sustainable agriculture, energy production, waste disposal, resource use, economic activity, and the various industries that underlie those activities. There will certainly be tradeoffs with whatever decisions are made moving forward, but hopefully with an iterative cost-benefit analysis and adaptative implementation that can monitor and respond to consequences of the climate law, New Yorkers and our neighbors will realize a clear net benefit from this legislation. If implementation proceeds without adequate planning and adaptability, what has the potential for a net benefit could lead to our detriment. | ||
| Margaret,Wooster | Buffalo's "Our Outer Harbor" coalition | Thank you for your work on this important plan! Generally our coalition supports Scenario 3: accelerated transition from combustion. As a post-industrial Great Lakes city we support an orderly and just transition to clean energy that creates jobs and also fosters a green economy. Climate change is affecting our Great Lakes in many ways, including unstable shorelines, flooding, storm damage and warming waters that affect fish and wildlife. We are losing keystone species like the Emerald shiner, base of the aquatic food web, in part due to warming Lake Ere waters. Harmful algae blooms threatening water quality and public water supplies are also increasing with higher temperatures. Please ensure the plan addresses human health and biodiversity in terms of protecting, restoring and maintaining water quality and native plant and animal species. Please address the impacts on the physical integrity of natural systems--rivers, lakes, forests, grasslands, wetlands--of all energy alternatives. Rivers and lakes need room to flood, to exchange nutrients with the land, to flow naturally creating important coastal and riparian habitats as well as clean water. The success of the climate action plan will depend on its ability to conserve energy by limiting wasteful human development like sprawl that demands even greater consumption of resources while destroying our natural capital -- the basis of our community health, resilience and sustainability. The more natural energy we destroy by disrupting natural systems, the more energy we will need to create simply to survive. Thank you again for your work on this. | |
| Joan,Pingitore | Dear Climate Action Council, The goals stated in the scoping plan are unreasonable and will make energy less affordable and less available. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is necessary for human flourishing. This plan emphasizes transitioning to energy sources (wind and solar) that are expensive, intermittent, and unreliable. Thus it is a bad plan. Our own fossil fuels are good, not bad. They are high density, abundant, and reliable. And by utilizing our own resources it will not create dependency on foreign fuels and materials. Wind turbines and solar panels are devastating to the environment. They require huge swaths of land. Rare earth metals must be mined and then must be disposed of when the turbine and solar panels are no longer effective (efficiency decreases with every passing year). The disposal of toxic solar panels and batteries is damaging to the environment. The need for rare earth metals increases our reliance on foreign entities with whom we are in competition or with whom we have an adversarial relationship (such as China). Do we really want to give China the ability to shut down our energy by withholding the necessary rare earth metals? The construction, delivery, installation, and decommissioning of wind turbines and solar panels uses an excessive amount of energy. If carbon emissions were really the concern of the Climate Action Council, then nuclear energy would be on the table to discuss. Nuclear is the most efficient energy source and produces no carbon. However, nuclear power is not on the table. Why not? These decisions will affect your, ours and our children's future in a negative way if not properly chosen. Sincerely, Joan Pingitore | ||
| Susan,Freiman | Climate change will impact all aspects of our lives, societies and economy. We need to respond with coordinated efforts, embracing the new, letting go of the old, and making sure we "rise all boats" - bring in and bring along all citizens while at the same time transitioning to a more sustainable economy and society, We have the ability, we have the mechanisms. We need to be willing to stand up for what is right and change to a more fair, sustainable, equitable, economy and society. | ||
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | Some of the most important work that governments can do is to ensure that all citizens have access to healthy and sufficient food. It takes policies, incentives and programs to do this, as well as outreach, education, determination and commitment. This time of climate change will put a large strain on our food systems world wide. NY, thanks to the fracking ban, has lower levels of fracking based pollutants that some other nearby states - and the states with higher fracking pollution may find their ability to grow healthy, unpolluted, food is diminished. Due to the vagaries of the impacts of climate change, and fracking pollution in other states, NY, along with NJ, are possibly going to be the new bread baskets of the US. We need to take our food growing seriously and not compromise farmland no matter how appealing it is to pave it, develop it, or solarize it (unless we do agrovoltaics which shows great promise and can help provide shade/cool loving food plants an advantage as the climate gets hotter). Making sure we have healthy, living soil is important for many reasons - healthy living soils with good mycorhyzal fungi can sequester more carbon, and good, healthy, living soil can grow larger, healthier plants. Ag/forestry will be crucial in the years ahead to help store carbon and to provide food for an ever expanding percentage of the population, even outside of NY. Thank you. | |
| Aaron,Jevons | GLOBALFOUNDRIES | I think it is a mistake to discount the decarbonization of existing Gas infrastructure. If Global Warming is actually the reason for this then we cannot ignore electrical line losses. They are huge compared to pressurized gas systems. Gas Systems can be converted to hydrogen or recovered methane from WWTP's, composting operations, manure etc. If this gas is not burned it would contribute MORE to GHGs and global warming. Also, if everything is on the electrical grid, we now have a single point of failure for the entire state. That is not acceptable given our extreme cold winters in upstate NY. Maybe we could use a little warming, then we wouldn't have as much of a heating load! | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | Cement, steel and other industrial processes can, and must, decarbonize. Low embodied concrete is a mature field with many options that not only lower the embodied carbon in cement and concrete, some of these techs also use up important pollutants like fly ash. Other use finely ground glass and keep it out of landfills (we know how low recycling rates are so using this in concrete can be a good option). Municipalities and other government agencies use 4 % of concrete worldwide. This adds up to a lot of concrete! If municipalities and other government agencies transition to low embodied carbon concrete it will be a huge step in the right direction. Studies have also shown that when government procurement switches to a new source, there are ripple effects across the supply chain, which means a change in municipal use will also cause a change in other areas as well. As far as green hydrogen goes, there is a long way to go and we need to start with what is ready now, which is wind and solar and low embodied carbon tech like low embodied carbon concrete, and municipalities and governments can lead the way, Pass the low embodied concrete act and start using low embodied concrete now. The tech is ready, mature, available in NY State, and uses waste products that might otherwise end up in landfills. Thank you. | |
| Steven,Rickert | It's obvious that we have to reduce carbon emissions, but it's also obvious that we don't have the electrical infrastructure in place to produce or transport the amount of electricity required for all of our energy needs. A second problem is the inefficiency of long-distance transport of electric power. Hydrogren can be produced efficiently using electrolysis from renewable electrical sources that produce more power than can be stored on a major scale. Hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas to significantly reduce the carbon emissions, and carbon capture technology can further reduce carbon emissions. Hydrogen can be 20% of the mix with natural gas without replacing current natural gas facilities. The energy in hydrogen is significantly higher than natural gas, further reducing carbon emissions from the same amount of fuel. The alternative is distributed power, requiring homes and buildings to install large battery systems manufactured from rare earth elements that must be imported and are not easily or efficiently recyclable. There will be improvements in battery technology, but you still have to require widespread expensive installations of dubious materials to make the system work. Let's explore common sense options like expansion of the use of hydrogen along with natural gas, eventually increasing the mixture as pipelines are replaced and improved. Pressurized hydrogen can be safely stored and pumped much like LP gas to quickly and efficient refuel vehicles, using fuel cell technology that is cleaner and more efficient than batteries. You can also refuel a vehicle in few minutes, not the extended recharging time required by battery-operated vehicles. The technology is out there. Draconian measures will not resolve the problem. A variety of solutions are required to solve a complex problem like we face. | ||
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | WE must rapidly transition to all renewable energy with storage. Wind and solar, with batteries (long duration like iron/air batteries), as well as flywheels and mechanical storage all have the ability to provide grid reliability 24/7/365. The technology is mature and is ready and waiting for us to move ahead with speed, commitment and joy in knowing we are doing the thing. We need to do this to save ourselves and our planet. Not only will we be lowering GHGs, we will be lowering asthma, other lung diseases and cancers as well. We owe this to the children and grandchildren. We know what we need to do we just need to do it. We can and we must transition quickly to a fully renewably powered - solar and wind - society and economy. Thank you. | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | Transportation is the second biggest source for GHGs in NY. We need to rapidly transition to all electric transportation with the electricity coming from renewable sources. There are many ways to ensure this is quick, fair and even fun. Education about EVs is crucial as is appealing to all citizens across the entire political, and vehicle buying, spectrums. We need to pair EVs with charging stations for apartment complexes as well as for public use. People need to be able to charge at home and LMI housing complexes need to have charging stations for their residents, as so middle income coop and condo complexes. These will need more funding and tech and educational assistance to get them going but thsi is important. Thank you. | |
| Susan,Freiman | Buildings are the highest percentage of our GHGs and we must quickly fully electrify them, with the electricity coming from renewable sources. Since geothermal heat pumps are the most efficient, we also need to make sure we use ground source tech for the majority of our building conversions. We must also ensure healthy indoor air and utilize healthy, low embodied carbon insulation plus efficient appliances. Thank you. | ||
| Mark,Sanchez-Potter | We are facing a climate crisis and the Climate Action Council must be brave in its plan. We need to drastically cut emissions and transition to a clean electric system by investing in renewable power. I write in support of All-Electric Buildings and expanding the ability of the New York Power Authority to generate energy via renewables. As a public school teacher and union member, I implore this council to make sure unions are at the forefront of the just transition. The scooping plan needs to work out contract labor agreements and prevailing wages. I also ask that you consider the health of the children of NYS. Gas plants emit carbon dioxide, benzene, and volatile organic particulates which cause asthma and cancer. This council must be bold and ensure we have a livable NYS for generations to come. Mark Sanchez-Potter | ||
| Dan,Casale | Rensselaer County Legislature | ||
| GLADYS,GIFFORD | |||
| E Kevin,Conley | • Some wastes have no beneficial use due to toxicity. This is true for sewage sludge (aka bio-solids)that is contaminated with PFAS. Therefore, sewage sludge must never be mixed and co-digested with other organics for the purpose of creating compost to be applied to land for farming gardening or landscaping. In Maine high PFAS concentrations have been found on farms and in farm wells as a result of sewage sludge being land applied as fertilizer. Tragically, as a result, some farmers can no longer produce crops or livestock products for market. The Maine legislature is considering establishing a $100 million fund to compensate affected farmers. • DEC should be directed to conduct a study comparing single stream and dual stream recycling, documenting contamination rates and marketability of different types of recycling. • The bottle redemption program must be expanded to more glass and plastic containers with at least an 100% increase in the refund. • Failure to keep toxic substances out of products and packaging will continue the assaults on our health. This threatens our food supply, water and land resources. For example, when plastic is recycled, toxic additives in the plastics will be recycled into new products. Eliminating such substances will facilitate recycling. • The final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each industry sector must achieve by 2050 and the other dates set forth in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. • The Climate Plan must take into account the pollution and toxicity associated with different waste management methods. Otherwise, low income and people of color communities will continue to be over-burdened by waste facilities and their health and environmental impacts. • To prevent false solutions, the state must establish a system to fund reductions in greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions and transition to a renewable energy economy. | ||
| Denis,Bradley | IBEW Local Union #3 | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Denis Bradley and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Staten Island, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Denis Bradley | |
| Susan,Nutt | This plan seems short sighted: natural gas is a clean resource of which we have great reserves. I don't think this is the time to be relying on electricity - the grid is woefully inadequate and how will all this electricity be generated? Wind and solar are not yet abundant or reliable sources. At my residence the power goes out several times a year which would mean nothing would work - no heat, hot water, refrigeration, etc. We're not being told what all this will cost the consumer, one reason we rely on gas is because it's cheaper and more efficient. I don't see what the big rush is to achieve these lofty goals when a more prudent approach might be wiser. Thank you. | ||
| THOMAS,ERMER | NEW YORK'S Climate agenda is too far reaching and the time frame and supposed clean energy systems, wind and solar need to be scaled back considerably. NO WINDMILLS in LAKE ERIE. This CAN NOT happen. Getting rid of ICE vehicles by 2035 can NOT happen. Getting Rid of Natural gas to heat homes and run Electric producing plants can NOT happen. All these idiotic timelines won't be ready to do this and need to be pushed back 10 to 30 years. WE won't be ready for ALL electric vehicles in that time frame and the technology is just NOT there yet. There is no way for LARGE scale storage of power, only on available for personal use right now. We will need gas for our ICE vehicles for at least 50-100 more years and it just can't be eliminated. This plan by NY state is just idiotic. | ||
| Anya,Khurana | Please see attached document. | has attachment | |
| Srihaan,Seelam | Robert E. Bell MS | Please see attached document. | has attachment |
| John,Nicholas | This is a personal submission. It does not not represent my empolyer. | I am 100% opposed to this climate action plan. The assumptions used to develop Key Benefit-Cost Findings and Cost-Benefit Assessment are flimsy at best and suspect. At worst they were designed to provide a pre-determined outcome. Hence, there is no confidence in the results. The climate action plan, if fully implemented, will make New Yorkers fully dependent on one energy source and as a result become even more vulnerable to cyber attacks on the electrical grid. Like California, New Yorkers will experience growing electricity shortages resulting in more brown-outs, black-outs, and even rolling black-outs to ration supply and these will damage our appliances as well adding additional cost for families. The cost of living and doing business in New York will increase substantially putting our entire economy and way of life at a disadvantage compared to other states that do not enact similar regulations. The exodus of people from high-cost states such as New York and California will only get worse and New York will continue to lose congressional representation to other states such as Florida and Arizona that are becoming increasingly more attractive places to live, particularly for retirees. In summary, the recommendations of the climate action plan are onerous and egregious to anyone who chooses to remain in New York State. After being a resident of this state for over 60 years, I will have one more reason to join the growing ranks of those leaving New York State if the climate action plan is implemented! | |
| Lorraine,Thibodeau | Thank you for the work you are doing and for the opportunity to add my comments: I am an emergency medicine physician at Albany Medical Center and I am working with my institution as well as Health Care Without Harm to examine (and ideally reduce) the amount of waste produced in our health care system. In addition, we are also looking at ways to improve sustainable practices. I am relatively new to this arena and would love to partner with others to help achieve our goals, as it is more than clear that while health care is necessary for public health, it is also responsible for a substantial portion of GHGE. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma and heart disease. The air pollution is so bad in Westchester County that my daughter moved to the Adirondack where the air is cleaner. As a result of my daughter’s asthma, we switched our gas heating system to geothermal to make the air cleaner for everyone. I find it very disturbing that NYS continues to allow gas expansion. It makes our efforts for cleaner air worthless because now another new building is continuing the pollution that we tried to reduce. Individual families cannot solve this pollution crisis. New York State government needs to stop gas infrastructure expansion immediately. This will lead to smoother and cleaner transition. The longer we put off the transition the harder the transition will be to meet our climate goals. Changes to the Public Service Law are needed for a smooth transition away from gas. Without amendments to the Public Service Law, it will be difficult to decarbonize NY’s buildings. For example, NYS must eliminate all forms of subsidies that encourage the use of gas in homes and buildings. The 100 ft rule subsidy and the legal entitlement to gas service must be eliminated. These and other rules need to change immediately. When industry knows what is expected of them, they can more easily prepare for the transition to clean energy. New York State must move full steam ahead, without delay, towards making electricity the principal energy source for powering its residential, commercial, and public buildings while rapidly weaning itself off of fossil gas. Effective and economical solutions are available today. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards. Implement the CLCPA targets without distractions by fossil fuels multi-million-dollar campaign of misinformation. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Joseph,Lopez | You do not mention how much electricity will cost in 2030. I own two small business located in old buildings and today I would not be able to heat my buildings with electric heat because it would be too costly. I have no idea how I would heat with electric using heat pumps. I have an old three-story building that uses steam heat. It would be a huge cost converting to heat pumps since I have no floor vents If this type of legislation is passed, I would have to go out of business and try to sell my buildings. These types of proposals will hurt the poor and middle class. I doubt if incentives will help pay for these upgrades. I guess this group wants small businesses to close. Everyone wants a clean environment but you have to transition slowly so you do not destroy the economy. I guess this administration has already done that. You cannot put all the burden on the poor and middle class in America when the rest of the world is doing very little to curb climate change. If you want the public to buy into climate change, I think our leaders should set some examples like having leader stop flying over the world to accept awards. | ||
| Deborah,Porder | Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. • The economic benefits of implementing the plan outweigh the economic costs of inaction by between $90 and $120 billion. This includes accounting for expected damage to sectors across the economy and public health costs of inaction. • New Yorkers are already facing the impacts of climate change, like more intense and frequent storms (i.e., more super storms like Hurricanes Ida and Sandy), changing seasons that impact New York’s agriculture sector, and dangerous heat spikes in the summers. Low-income communities and communities of color are suffering even more from harmful pollution from the reliance of our economy on fossil fuels. • In sum, the faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. | ||
| Gale,Pisha | The Draft Scoping Plan (DSP) correctly recognizes that municipal solid waste (MSW) is largely made up of discarded products and packaging which generate emissions throughout their life cycles. A major way to reduce emissions, energy use and pollution is through extended use of products and materials combined with recovery strategies. It’s also important for manufacturers of products and materials to have an incentive to reduce unnecessary packaging and avoid packaging that contains toxic chemicals. This spring, the New York State Legislature passed a Right to Repair bill that will encourage manufacturers to make their products repairable, thus keeping them out of landfills for a longer time. We also need a strong extended producer responsibility policy for paper and packaging to address emissions from the waste sector, as well as an EPR strategy for appliances that contain refrigerants, which are hundreds to thousands of times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The final Scoping Plan must include consistent and sufficient levels of funding, staff and technical support for waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs. According to the pie chart on page 234 of the DSP, organics are the second largest component of MSW. The final Scoping Plan should recommend adequate funding from the state to support organics recycling infrastructure and incentivize public-private partnerships for the development of organics recycling facilities. The DSP correctly recognizes the need for expanding the existing Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law so we can eventually get organics out of our landfills. Finally, state agencies should require strategies to reduce leaks of biogas from landfills, solid waste management facilities and anaerobic digesters. However, this statement should be emphasized: “caution should be taken to avoid biogas use intentionally or inadvertently leading to the extended use of fossil fuels” (DSP, p. 250). | ||
| Elaine,Weir | While traveling in a train from London to Edinburgh I saw an abundance of wind turbines with graceful, gentle moving blades. Some were moving slowly, others were turning a little faster, and some not at all. They decorated the distant hilltops. As we approached the turbines, I saw cows grazing and crops growing in harmony under them. The site was reminiscent of the idyllic, pastoral scenes of a Hudson River school masterpiece painting. The only things missing in the Hudson River school works of art were the wind turbines. I was told by a Scottish fisherman that those farmers were making a lot of money off those wind turbines on their farms. I thought that would be good for NYS too. Up-state needs more income. Why send our money out of state purchasing polluting fossil fuels when we can keep our money in NYS and support clean energy. The farmers would benefit greatly by providing them with a steady source of income as growing crops can be unpredictable. In addition, I ran across an article about the field of agrivoltaics. The idea is to incorporate solar arrays into farmland allowing farmers to cultivate crops and generate clean energy at the same time. Growing crops beneath solar panels can be beneficial. Thanks to the shade provided by the panels, the soil can retain more water, therefore needs less irrigation. Panels can also help protect crops from hailstorms, high winds, and severe cold and heat, making them less vulnerable to extreme weather events. It appears that some crops actually grow better, stronger, and longer under solar panels. As NYS becomes hotter this may be especially beneficial for our New York farmers and our food supply. Please think about including these ideas in the scoping plan. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards. Implement the CLCPA targets without distractions by the fossil fuels multi-million-dollar campaign of misinformation. Thank you for all your good efforts. | ||
| Peter,Dawes | WA2LPW | We all want the same things: clean air, stopping runaway climate change and to be free from fossil fuels. However, due to the actions of China and India our best efforts are not going to make any discernible difference until they turn their thing around. The requirement to get off of natural gas for heating is going to be a big problem. I spend winters in the Crystal River , Fl area which is far enough north to provide below freezing temperatures several times each winter. I have a recently installed heat pump and I can tell you that the colder it gets the less efficient the heat pump gets. Often the heating elements are required to provide barely adequate warmth. This makes a noticeable increase in my Duke electric bill. Also I see big problems with adequate power to handle a Buffalo Blizzard and sub zero cold snap. I am keeping my wood burner and increasing the size of my wood pile for when the power goes out in sub zero temperatures! The other major issue inadequately addressed is the economic impact that will result from soaring electric rates caused by green power and greatly increased power consumption, not to mention inflation. So slow the time table down and give more attention to the economic impact on NY residents. Florida is looking better & better to this retiree. Peter Dawes 4452 Beach Ridge Rd. Lockport, NY 14094 716 625 4103 | |
| Donald,Dimmock | Local # IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Donald Dimmock and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Manhattan, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Donald Dimmock | |
| Beverly,Federspiel | I would like to see NYS take its time before implementing all of the provisions of the plan. The grid cannot sustain the additional load. And after speaking with electricians and engineers, there are still so many unanswered questions regarding electric cars and batteries. Just where are these huge batteries going to go? What about the roads? Electric vehicles are heavier and will damage the roads quicker. With a recession looming, I would think the cost to everyday citizens and small businesses will be crippling. This plan will also put the electric companies in a monopoly which Albany will not be able to control. Even if they think it can. I am not opposed to changes, but I think it has to be slower and go hybrid for awhile to allow people to make some adjustments. Also, NYS can put all of these onerous plans on to their citizens, but not much will change globally until China and India change their ways. For once, put New York residents first. Thanks | ||
| Pamela,Smith | Greetings, I am extremely concerned about the environmental degradation caused by the former coal plant being used for Crypto mining on Seneca Lake. I previously owned a cottage on Honeoye Lake but sold it due to the blue green algea blooms caused in part by the warming of the lake. We could no longer enjoy Lake life (swimming, fishing, kayaking, skiing). The lake was Green and had a horrific odor. Additionally, we absolutely must work to reduce carbon emissions and meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Protection of our environment far outweighs any possible economic benefits. The time to act is NOW. Thank you, Pam Smith | ||
| Jeff,Schumann | None | This is Jeff Schumann, Croton on Hudson. I support the Scoping Plan. It is needed to meet the CLCPA goals. But it must be stronger in meeting those goals. For Building: • The “zero emissions standards” must remain. • More incentives and regulations are needed to improve efficiency standards in existing buildings. When any building is to be sold, the buyer should be presented with an energy audit. • Incentives to gas hook ups must be eliminated immediately and replaced with incentives for electric hook ups. • The state should ban the sale of any appliance that does not meet strict energy efficiency standards. • Should include a commitment to retrofit a minimum of 2 million homes by 2030, prioritizing those in disadvantaged communities. • Until fuel appliances/equipment used in buildings is phased out, a surcharge should be imposed on their use to support the move to electrification. Thank you for your consideration and effort. | |
| Dawn,Montanye | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County | ||
| PAUL,MOQUIN | |||
| Charlene,Davern | My husband and I received an email stating The Climate Leadership and Protection Act. After reading the mandates that are being proposed, we have concerns about the average person being required to accommodate this Plan. We support Legislation A.7524A requiring full cost benefit analysis to be done on the initiatives, that has been submitted by Jeff Gallahan, State Assemblyman. My concern is that the circumstances of New York residents has not been examined. Why such radical legislation would be considered without sharing this plan with the constituents is disturbing. Please consider future generations when making considerable changes regarding energy changes. Thank you! | ||
| James ,Davern | We do not want fossil fuels eliminated so quickly. We do not believe in the climate change disinformation being spread by the liberal media. We need to get to all the fuel we have in the USA. I would not endorse this climate plan. I would support legislation A.7524A requiring a full cost benefit analysis to be done on the initiatives. Thank you. | ||
| Jenna,Cain | In Sunrise Westchester’s work trying to standardize policy around environmental justice in Westchester County, it quickly became clear that NY’s Clean Energy Communities (CEC) and Climate Smart Communities (CSC) programs were formed around the idea of advancing climate action locally, but fail to prioritize low-income and BIPOC communities in doing so. Applying for the grants accessible through these programs can be competitive and time-consuming; thus, the programs favor communities with the temporal and economic means to apply for these grants and, if disadvantaged communities are able to apply, exclude them on the grounds of having completed climate actions prior to the application than other communities of more means, typically majority-white communities, are able to. This Draft Scoping Plan frequently discusses the CSC and CEC programs as landmarks of NY climate action, but only once acknowledges that they have been ineffective in helping low-income and BIPOC communities and offers few solutions to resolve such inequities. I call on the NY Climate Action Council to revise its plans around the CSC and CEC programs in the final Scoping Plan. This should include more funding towards resources for BIPOC and low-income communities specifically to apply to these programs, such as state-funded personnel who could do the intricate tasks involved with applying for these grants that disadvantaged community leaders often do not have the means to do, and prioritizing disadvantaged communities as the recipients of these grants. | ||
| John,Moynihan | Northeast Clean Heat & Power Initiative (NECHPI) | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting to today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma as well as heart disease. Both my husband and I have suffered from heart disease as well. The transition away from fossil fuels will help reduce pollution in all areas of NYS and therefor provide better health to all New Yorkers. Since most of the pollution is produced near disadvantaged communities, we need pay special attention to these areas and clean them up first. The State needs to treat mandates put forth by the CLCPA and the Climate Action Council as legally enforceable. The Final Scoping Plan should include sector-specific timelines for emissions reduction. Having timelines will help industry compliance and regulatory enforcement. Industry will know what is expected and be able to plan accordingly. Without these safeguards in place, we risk our climate legislation becoming ineffective. My Grandfather belonged to the sheet metal Union. He felt that the unions protected workers and was always proud of being part of the Union. Therefore, the State must require strong labor standards on projects that use State funds or take place on State property, including strengthening existing labor standards under §224-a of the New York Labor Law. Strong labor standards should include: prevailing wage and benefits, project labor agreements, community benefits agreements, local hiring, use of pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs, and, where applicable, labor neutrality agreements. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards that you know will clean our air and reduce climate change. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | When I attended the All-Electric Building hearing, I was horrified by the ignorance of some of our NYS Representatives. They said All Electric building do not work in cold climates. Knowing my daughter lives in an All-Electric building in the Adirondack I knew their comments were complete rubbish. I can sympathize with these ignorant people because in ways we are all ignorant. For example, when I had the geothermal people come to evaluate our home for installing geothermal heating, I did not even know their system did both heating and cooling. In fact, getting rid of those noisy A/C units outside my bedroom window was a major deciding factor to having geothermal installed in my home. There is so much to learn with the new technology. We need Public education on the benefits of CLCPA’s climate solutions. I urge the Council to immediately fund and start a statewide education and awareness campaign on the benefits of a clean energy economy as well as on the economic, health, security, and climate risks of reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, this education campaign is necessary to counter the relentless and massive disinformation crusades, documented at https://bit.ly/GaslightNY. The fossil-fuel interests spent decades perfecting this chicanery, first to deny climate science, and now to cast doubt on the solutions. Given their long track record of weaponizing disinformation, the absence of a public information component in the scoping plan is a grave oversight. I encourage the Council to add a chapter on community-specific outreach, awareness, and education in the Final Scoping Plan with recommendations for assuaging many New Yorkers’ disinformation-induced fears about the CLCPA and for informing them how the law will be implemented and what its climate, health, environmental, and economic benefits are. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards and keep up the good work. | ||
| James,Ingham | Ladies and gentlemen, I write this note to express my opposition to legislation which would restrict and/or eliminate choices for the use of natural gas and new natural gas connections. Of the many times I have travelled through the Southern Tier, windmills to generate clean power are idle. Solar panel farms not only create significant eyesores, but the extraction of materials used to produce them create enormous environmental hazards, the ultimate retirement of them will be costly and damaging to the environment, and a substantial portion of the panels are made outside the US. Further, limiting the choice of New York State residents to a sole (or limited number of) provider(s) of energy for residential and commercial users creates unfair economic risks and burdens to users. Accordingly, I urge you to abandon your efforts to eliminate future naturel gas transmissions and connections limit and restrict the use of natural gas. | ||
| SAM,JITZCHAKI | I.B.E.W. | The chapter calls for an aggressive timeline to ban natural gas which would have an immediate negative impact on important good paying jobs and also on the State's ability to ultimately transition to fully renewable energy sources.. An impartial and knowledgeable committee should review the method and timeline to implement this process. I am a qualified candidate for the committee and would gladly volunteer to assist in the process. | |
| Frank,Zajac | I received a summary of the key recommendations with my electric bill from Steuben Rural Electric. Appears that the 22 member CAC lacks common sense and reflects a utopian philosophy that is completely unrealistic. They need to show a concrete plan for the supporting infrastructure that will allow for the generation of the energy that will be required to support their grandiose plans. I would think that supporting infrastructure should be substantially completed before attempted implementation. What is also needed is detail on where all the billions (trillions?) on dollars are going to come from to support their plans. NY state can't just print more money like the federal government currently does and we are already taxed to death in this state. I think that most citizens don't know squat about the CLCPA plan. Once they are really confronted with it there is going to be an uprising the likes of which we have never seen. | ||
| Jeff,Schumann | None | This is Jeff Schumann, Croton on Hudson. I support the Scoping Plan but it needs more specific goals and target dates. Regarding Transportation: The final Scoping Plan must • include more detail on how to a fully electrified the transportation sector and clear roles and responsibilities for agencies to meet those electrification targets. • detail a comprehensive plan for installation of charging stations across the state, not more than 200 miles apart • do away with all barriers to direct sales of EVs, • provide incentives for low-income New Yorkers to buy EVs • ensure any hydrogen vehicles must use green hydrogen • include targets for converting all public transportation vehicles to ZEVs | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | This is a technical comment on a trivial problem and has no major bearing on Climate Act implementation. However, it raises a pervasive issue that needs to be addressed. All indications from the Climate Action Council meetings this year are that the plan for public involvement is simply going through the motions. There was no attempt to start identifying comments as they were submitted to determine if they rose to the level where the Council would have to address them specifically. Instead, Council leadership has insisted that they can only respond once the comment period closes. In addition, there is no provision for the kind of discrepancy documented here to be reconciled. While this problem is not a big deal, the terrifying prospect is that the issues associated with reliability raised at last summer’s Reliability Planning Speaker Session could possibly be treated the same, that is to say ignored. This comment evaluated the transportation sector vehicle miles traveled difference between Scenarios 2 and 3 compared to Scenario 4 due to rail passenger improvements. The Draft Scoping Plan claims that “Incremental reductions from enhanced in-state rail aligning with 125 MPH alternative detailed in Empire Corridor Tier 1 Draft EIS” will provide a reduction of 200 million light duty vehicle miles at a per unit cost of $6 per mile or $1.2 billion. I estimate that the only valid cost for the difference between the rail alternatives is $8.4 billion and that it would only provide a reduction of 64.7 million miles. While my estimate is for 2035, consistent with the Empire Corridor evaluation, and the Draft Scoping Plan is for 2050, I don’t think there is any question that the numbers are inconsistent. | |
| Robert,Healy | Self | We MUST act now to reduce our carbon emissions! If every house built is capable of generating the energy to not just support their needs but one other house we can do something to slow climate change. I have a ranch house I had it appraised for solar panels. Under current NYS law I could only meet the requirements for my house hold. In my case one third of my roof! We need to make every house in NYS. This will help prevent brown outs, reduce the cost of living in NYS and address global warming. It should also provide more power to the system and make it more available to businesses, therefore making NYS more economical to do business in. Thank for your time. | |
| Ralph,Camoia | Local 3 ibew | ||
| Thomas,McCann | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Thomas McCann and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in South Huntington, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Thomas McCann | ||
| James,Giannone | IBEW Local 3 | Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is James Giannone and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Brooklyn, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, James Giannone | |
| Daniel ,Connelly | Local Union 3 IBEW | I understand that something needs to be done, with disastrous climate change. We need a little more time, to explore methods to filter natural gas emissions. Many good jobs have been lost, at Power plants, and with jobs that support these plants. Nuclear power plants should not be taken off of the table. I understand that the fix will not be an easy task. We need to get all of the states in our whole nation, to comply with The same rules. I remember acid rain, from coal plants in the Midwest, polluting our lakes and reservoirs, so the rules must apply to everybody. I am glad that something is being done, to control the causes of climate change. What we don’t need, is more jobs going overseas. That is not the answer. I have driven through parts of the state of New York, and seeing all of the manufacturing, with factories, side-by-side, all shuttered. I remember a trip with My wife and children, where I visited three different Western New York. When I asked business representatives how things were going, the three responses that I received was horrible, terrible and It Sucks. We have to be sure to protect good union jobs, and make sure we do not destroy opportunities, for people to make a decent living. Thank you for taking the time to read this comment. All the best. | |
| Eric ,Smith | This whole plan is just a power grab by New York State. As a resident and taxpayer I cannot believe that any time or energy is wasted on the ideas presented in this “climate change “ manifesto. I wholeheartedly reject the ideas and direction of this report and ask that it is thrown in the nearest garbage and instead we shrink the size of the government bureaucracy and get back to basic ideas like low taxes and less government regulations. | ||
| Walter,Manning | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Walter Manning and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Flushing, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Walter Manning | ||
| Nelson,Eusebio | Local union # 3 IBEW | Hello, Elected officials continue to talk up a "just transition" as a necessary part of addressing the climate crisis, however, we need to hold them accountable so that the actions match the rhetoric. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure good union jobs aren't just lost, but there is actual growth and expansion of good-paying, union jobs in the industries most related to the climate crisis. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. And finally, the Draft Scoping Plan needs to address the impacts and costs of the Plan on all NYS residents. This is the time to step up and have our voice heard at this critical time as we all work together in New York to address the Climate Crisis. Nelson Eusebio Local # 3 IBEW | |
| Nelson,Eusebio | Local union # 3 IBEW | ||
| Andrew,Lobianco | Local 3 ibew | Keep the middle class employed | |
| Evan,Rudnick | |||
| Giovanni,Valente | Local 3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Giovanni Valente and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Brooklyn, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Giovanni Valente | |
| Stephen,Acquario | NYS Association of Counties (NYSAC) | ||
| Jessica,Gilbert | SUNY Geneseo | Ch. 6 - The language in this chapter (and I fear throughout) to hold those implementing the Climate Act accountable to NY's communities, particularly Disadvantaged Communities, is lax. While it is important to consult community members and organizations, have advisory bodies, etc., it is critical that these opportunities for feedback include an accountability and transparency mechanisms to ensure that such feedback is integrated, rather than requests for feedback that are simply there to check a box and are then ignored. Ch. 7 - Evaluation of Labor Standards needs to close loopholes in current law that exclude certain groups from labor protections (e.g. farmworkers). Ch. 7 - Targeted Financial Support for Businesses needs to include opportunities for technical assistance to those trying to become MWBE certified. The MWBE certification process is a difficult one and should be amended/streamlined. But in the meantime, technical assistance must be provided to those seeking that certification - otherwise there are too few MWBEs for this program to truly be an impactful one. Ch. 15 - This whole chapter needs a much more significant focus on equity, rather than brief mentions (on pages 210, 215, and 222) about expanded participation in agriculture- and forestry-related programs. BIPOC growers, for example, practice regenerative agriculture and restore soil health at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Programs to eliminate barriers to farming for BIPOC people must be included to expand the number of BIPOC farmers. Implementing values-based procurement, such as the legislation proposed in the Good Food NY Bill, will also go a long way towards addressing climate concerns throughout the food system in an equitable manner. Finally, any and all funding, technical assistance, training, and other programs should prioritize participation by Disadvantaged Communities. Finally, this whole chapter needs to consider the entire food system, not just agriculture. | |
| Kenneth ,Glennon | Local 3 | ||
| John,Connolly | IBEW LOCAL 3 | ||
| Brian,Sapp | |||
| Jeff,Schumann | None | My name is Jeff Schumann and I live in Croton on Hudson, Westchester County and I am a member of the Sierra Club. Draft plan is not specific enough. CLCPA set the goals that need, by law, to be met and the timeframe for doing so. The scoping plan is intended to describe how we will meet those goals. It needs to be specific and measurable enough to do this. In its current iteration, it is neither. Changes are needed in the electricity sector to help meet the goals of the CLCPA. The following should included in the Scoping Plan. We need to increase renewable energy production, both large scale and small scale projects. To facilitate the faster approval and building of large scale projects, ORES needs more resources for the permitting process. The Scoping Plan needs to address this issue. The Scoping Plan needs to have concrete plans for the development and implementation of small scale and distributed systems. These systems can play an outsized role in electricity generation in urban and suburban areas. Specific plans to upgrade the grid so that the electricity can go where it is needed and to enable renewable energy sources to continue to operate instead of having to shut down because the grad cannot handle the load. Battery and other methods for storing excess energy produced from renewable sources must be addressed in the Scoping Plan. There should be a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel power plants. There should be a specific plan to retire and replace current fossil fuel plants. This must provide funding and support for both workers affected by this transition, and the communities around these plants. For all of the above, yearly target dates and measurable metrics should be included in the Scoping Plan. The draft Scoping Plan mentions new technologies and trends. These need to be incorporated when they are proven methods. But we cannot wait for them. Technologies to mitigate the climate crisis exist now and must be used. | |
| Michael,O'Friel | WIN Waste Innovations | Please see attached document. A hard copy has been overnighted to Draft Scoping Plan Comments NYSERDA 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 | has attachment |
| Jennifer,DeFrancesco | I own a logging company in Cairo. We operate several pieces of heavy equipment. The conversion of those from fossil fuel to electric is not possible. It would be far to costly to even consider. In addition, the weight of the batteries would render the already heavy equipment useless in the woods. This equipment is in the woods for weeks and months at a time. On board charging is not realistic, and actual plug in charging at a station is not possible. The implications of such regulation would put our already stressed industry at it's breaking point. | ||
| Jennifer,DeFrancesco | B&B Forest Products, Ltd. | I own a logging company in Cairo, NY. Firewood is a major source of income for my company, as well as the main heat source for many of my customers. They are not buying firewood to just burn in a campfire or in their fire place for ambiance. They are rural homeowners that depend on that cheap and renewable heat source every year. The switch to very costly electric is not feasible for these people. Additionally, taking that firewood out of the woods in the number one way to encourage regeneration. Losing that market, would take away any incentive for proper forest management. With fuel prices skyrocketing, loggers can not afford to handle any wood that does not have an end market for it. So we will be forced to just leave it behind. That is not good for the forests, or for our bottom lines. Firewood is renewable, sustainable, and efficient. We need to use it as a good quality alternative to burning fossil fuels, rather than banning it along side of them. | |
| James,Simko | IBEW Local Union 3 | Elected officials continue to talk up a "just transition" as a necessary part of addressing the climate crisis, however, we need to hold them accountable so that the actions match the rhetoric. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure good union jobs aren't just lost, but there is actual growth and expansion of good-paying, union jobs in the industries most related to the climate crisis. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. And finally, the Draft Scoping Plan needs to address the impacts and costs of the Plan on all NYS residents. | |
| Kate ,Delgado | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan!! This plan is well-developed and strong! I support it fully and believe it will have a crucial impact on emissions and climate policy. My name is Kate Delgado , and I live in New York, New York. I would firstly like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. In my community, we produce immense amounts of waste. I am happy at the inclusion of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies for difficult-to-manage products and materials; however, the Final Scoping Plan needs more prescriptive EPR policy recommendations. EPR policies for plastic and paper packaging require manufacturers to standardize recycling labels and require a percentage of post-consumer content in products. Manufacturers should be required to follow standards that consider environmental justice impacts in hazardous waste disposal! I am here today to share my support on the Draft Scoping Plan and offer specific recommendations to help ensure the Climate Action Council can prepare the strongest final plan for the GREAT state of New York. I also support and appreciate the recommendation for legislation to amend and expand the existing Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law (2019) to separate organics, ban combustion and landfilling organics, and require a surcharge on all waste generated to provide funds for reduction, reuse, and recycling. Please, NY needs to make bold climate plans. We are the greatest state in this country and need to be a leader in innovation in this area! Thank you, Kate | ||
| Joseph,Jaffe | Local Union #3 | Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Joseph Jaffe and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Fresh Meadows, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Joseph Jaffe | |
| Sean,Troy | : Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Sean Troy and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Queensvillage, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Sean Troy | ||
| Jane,Murphy | Although "leaving fossil fuels behind" sounds nice from a superficial perspective, I no longer believe that it would be a wise move. I doubt that it is even realistic; but even if it could be, it certainly isn't realistic now! Solar and wind power are too unreliable, and the use of fossil fuels is STILL necessary to maintain them. We CANNOT do without RELIABLE transportation and heat in wintertime. The intention to risk these absolute necessities is foolish, an experiment that would surely cause great harm to New Yorkers. We should be focused instead on problems with realistic solutions. | ||
| Larry,Cohen | Local Union #3 | We need this done ASAP! It will benefit everyone. | |
| John,Ferry | Local Union #3 IBEW | The Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure that good union jobs aren’t just lost but there is actual growth and expansion of good paying jobs that are part of industries most related to the climate crisis. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. The Draft Scoping Plan also needs to address the overall impact and costs The Plan will have on NYS residents. Thank you, John Ferry | |
| Stefan,Doering | Shift Group | I fully support this initiative and hope you are able to pass it! | |
| John,Parente | Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is John Parente and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Great Neck, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, John Parente | ||
| Nora,Lovell Marchant | American Express Global Business Travel | We urge the Climate Action Council to include a firm endorsement of a Clean Fuel Standard in the Transportation Sector Strategie s of the final Scoping Plan. Please see the attached letter for our complete comment. | has attachment |
| ALEXANDER,FARKAS | Local#3 IBEW | ||
| Matthew,Cohen | Local 3 ibew | ||
| DAVID,sanders | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. | ||
| Robert,Spinelli | General comments: 1) Decarbonization is a reasonable goal, but should be realistic, incremental, and not burden an already burdened middle class. 2) Leadership is meaningless to the tax payer. The only leadership is the cost to the taxpayer, which will be significant directly and indirectly. 3) purpose and objective are fine, but unrealistic. Current non-polluting energy sources are not sufficient to meet current let alone increasing energy demand in NYS. 4) Climate justice for who? The elite, maybe the poor. But no justice for the middle class who has to pay for this. 5) Your analysis is biased and overtly optimistic. 6) Who does this benefit? My benefit vs cost value is negative. 7) transportation (car) will cost me more for gas and of if I go electric car...they are way more expensive than gas powered cars and hybrids. 8) Buildings (home) - heating and electric costs will continue to exceed incomes and you will price people (except elites) out of the home markets. 9) the transition will be enormously expensive to the poor and middle class, to the primary benefit of the rich who will own the energy sources. Overall, this plan has been created by a group of people, who clearly are so removed from the expenses of daily living that they do not understand the middle class cannot afford this. Further, they are so insensitive the average persons reality that their goals and objectives are more important than the needs (goals and objectives) and incomes for the people you expect to pay for this change. Disappointed in this uncaring approach. | ||
| Gerd,Zeibig | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Thomas,Tracy | Another over done good idea from our State Capital. We see with recent events how well this (these ideas) is working out in Europe => NOT. I am all for clean air and water, but not with this draconian approach, the technology, current grid, common sense dictates this is to far to be even a stretch goal. Re-work this disastrous plan. | ||
| Jasmine,Melzer | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. They fly over my neighborhood (Park Slope) bringing billionaires back from the Hamptons so we can't even sit in our backyards and enjoy the peace and quiet to which we are entitled. Please ask the FAA when and why flight traffic plans changed. | ||
| sandye,renz | N?A | The Plan recommends extensive investments in public transportation, investments that will benefit a wide swath of New Yorkers. Recognizing the critical role public transportation plays in reducing miles traveled by private vehicles, the Climate Action Council is to be commended for its extensive attention to both electrifying and expanding public transportation. The Plan stresses the need for community-based discussions when formulating actual plans, which is appropriate. For example, in New York City, much could be done to make subways more accessible and subway platforms safer, buses could better accommodate bicycles and strollers, and programs that reward frequent riders with free service, now being piloted, could be expanded. Indeed, expanding, electrifying, and improving public transportation must be a top priority to reduce emissions, improve access (especially for disadvantaged communities), and improve public health and safety. Also a fast train network all over the state and country is imperative. | |
| sandye,renz | N?A | Phase out fossil fuels in electricity generation by 2040. Many of New York's fossil fuel plants are already at retirement age (72% of gas turbines!) I support the process laid out in the Scoping Plan for regulations that ensure a continual decline in GHG emissions from power plants, reaching zero by 2040. The Final Scoping Plan must also: Prioritize retirement of fossil fuel-fired plants whose emissions disportionately harm disadvantaged communities, consistent with the Climate Act. Ensure protections for all communities facing plant closures, including: Training and supportive services for displaced workers, beginning well before plant retirement, to enable a smooth job transition. Sufficient funding of the Electric Generation Facility Cessation Mitigation Program to reduce the local property tax impacts of plant closure on municipalities and school districts. Plant-owner responsibility for the costs of site remediation. Encourage re-use of power plant sites for battery storage. This would not only support the clean energy transition but would also help to mitigate the revenue and jobs impacts of plant closure. Deny new gas infrastructure permits to avoid increases in GHG emissions and creation of more stranded assets. Accelerate renewable energy development to reach the Climate Act's near-term target of generating 70% of electricity from renewable resources by 2030. Direct the NYS Office of Renewable Siting to set annual goals for megawatts of renewable resources to be permitted each year through 2030. Integrate solar with agricultural production on the same land, and direct NYSERDA and the Department of Agriculture and Markets to produce educational materials and guidance for farmers, renewable energy developers, local governments, and other stakeholders. Agriculture and renewable energy can be complementary and mutually-supporting land uses, and agrivoltaics have benefits. Develop the work force to do this work. | |
| Emilie ,Hauser | City of Kingston Conservation Advisor y Commission | See attached letter on section from Chapter 19, which specifically calls for funding for Conservation Advisory Commissions and En vironmental Management Councils. LU5. Mapping, Research, Planning, and Assistance Page 288 Assist local governments to create land-use policies: | has attachment |
| A.J.,Baynes | AMHERST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. | ||
| Susan,Weber | This is putting the cart before the horse.. we need to be gradually transitioning to cleaner energy.. you need infrastructure in place prior to a transition..current timeframe is ludicrous.. | ||
| John,Hamms | As a senior citizen on a fixed income, I am opposed to this plan. Specifically, the banning of naural gas use. The potential costs to convert my home to all natural gas use will be a MAJOR economic hardship. It would also force us to use electricity, which in our household had a n anual average of $ 1051 (2001-2017). Over the last FOUR YEARS OUR ANNUAL COST for electricity is $ 1622. This is a 54 % increase! I must point out that actual number of KwH used has increased only about 10% over this same period. Our natural gas bill has increased only about 10% with a similar increase in usage. Forcing consumers to have a choice of only one power source will undoubtedly significantly in crease costs. The word monopoly comes to mind. I also have grave concerns about the condition and coverage of the existing electric grid. The grid will need to be substantially upgraded in order to handle the additional electric draw. What is the plan to pay for this? Pleas be advised that I am in favor of renewable enegy sources (wind, solar, geothermal). I just feel that this current plan has not been thouroughly thought out as far as how it will affect the average consumer. | ||
| Charlie,Dufort | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. | ||
| Jill,Henck | Adirondack North Country Association | ||
| Eva,Hoskin | United Solar Energy Supporters | ||
| Candice,King | This is beyond troubling to me. Let God be glorified He is the One who controls the climate. I do Not approve some person dictate to me or eliminate my options, nor oppose their ideology on me. I wonder how many of these people actually are "green energy " living themselves. Stop advancing the destruction of democracy!! Let me be clear, I am opposed to this "climate agenda"!! Candice J King | ||
| Carol,Morris | I started teaching about climate change in the 1980's at Tompkins Cortland Community College. Since then, the predictions of the scientists have been shown to be correct, only the changes have been coming at a great rate and to a greater magnitude. The time to act is now. The health of the planet, and thus the human species, depends on it. | ||
| Scott,Johnson | Johnson Siding | The NYS CAC Drapt plan is a JOKE. They are taking the wrong road for our future of our county & our kids. DON'T PASS THIS PLAN !!!! | |
| Melissa ,Elstein | Stop the Chop NY/NJ | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in this Plan because: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | |
| Robert,Grant | This Plan is NOT right for New York. Maybe in the future but not in my life time! The DUMDASS who wants to do it now has not thought of the impacts and the costs that it will destroy the small towns in upstate! Ask your self where is the electric going to come from, every house will have to up grade their electric service to an 300 amp service, with all the solar panels in the state of California they only have 30 minutes of reserve energy. How much land gets taken away to produce power? The biggest QUESTION is when the panels go bad where can they go? not in a dump too many heavy metals. As law makers you better start to think things though there a lot more questions that need to be addressed before passing this bill. if it passes I'll be looking to move out of state. | ||
| Lucas,Wilson | Self | The amount of noise pollution alone should be reason to ban non essential helicopters Tensions are high in this country and we need as much peace and quiet as we can possibly get. There is no reason a helicopter fully of 8 people should take priority over a city of 8.8 million. It’s ridiculous. Not to mention unsafe. Ban non essential helicopters NOW | |
| Andrew,Davis | Mercuria Energy America, Inc. | See attached comments. | has attachment |
| Anne,Riccitelli | E. 17th St. Loft Corp. | • Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. • Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, and the fact that the heliports are located in densely populated areas! | |
| robert,thompson | Where is all this electricity going to come from and at what cost especially to senior citizens on fixed incomes ? In my opinion it is not possible to transition totally away from fossil fuels in the limited time frame being proposed. | ||
| Steven,Bisson | This is a totally insane proposal. Once again people with more money than they know what to do with are trying to dictate how the middle and lower class should live. These people have no idea what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. Oil and gas is much cheaper to use than solar and the cost to change over would be too expensive for the average home owner. This is just another step towards socialism, (You will live the way the government tells you.) If anything, this should be put up for a vote by the American people. Also, the homeowner should be able to choose which way they want to heat and power their own home. Who will pay for this ridiculous change over? The taxpayer as always? | ||
| John,Chassin | Based on Europe's experience with reducing gas and coal has only lead them to bring back gas and coal. The reduction in emissions in the US over the last decade has been the result of increased natural gas use not its decrease. This move is basic insanity which will burden residents with extreme high energy prices in coming years. It also makes it nearly impossible for new buildings to install emergency generators when gas is not available. | ||
| Bryan,Grimaldi | I’m a single family homeowner in Brooklyn with both electric and gas service. When we renovated our home in 2010 we made conscious choices for the most energy efficient options – and paid a premium for those choices, understanding that we would conserve energy, achieving long-term savings and do our part for the environment. If the CAC Draft Scoping Plan is implemented, I will have to change my appliances if they fail in the 2030s and those retrofits will be expensive, and I dare say unaffordable. Electricity at current rates is more expensive than gas. In my case, I have a 95% efficient hot water boiler that also feeds a domestic hot water storage tank. We have a gas dryer, stove and BBQ, and our home is weatherized, has new windows, spray foam insulation, and uses smart technology to manage energy use, at some point we will install solar panels, however I want the choice not to have to forego gas – especially when I know if can be decarbonized over time using RNG and hydrogen. While the public cares generally about the environment, they are ill informed about the issues being debated by the CAC, and have no awareness of the broad implications the Plan will have on their daily lives. I have personally been throughout the State talking to Chambers, trade associations, local legislatures and other civic groups – and overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the people I have spoken with have no idea that the CAC exists, or have any view of the substance of the conversations. Further, when I explain what’s in the Plan, the room erupts with shock and awe, with visceral reactions to the affordability issues, the lack of choice, and concerns about reliability. The CAC should take that seriously, and educate the public prior to finalizing the Plan. The CAC needs to study options other than full electrification for heating. The plan needs to consider additional sources of renewable energy other than electrification to lower emissions. | ||
| Juan,Vargas | The Draft Scoping Plan is missing references to the profession of Landscape Architecture and its great potential to contribute to the State’s climate action goals. Landscape Architects play a pivotal role in many areas covered by the Draft Scoping Plan, including but not limited to: public health and the environment, transportation, planning, forestry, green infrastructure, and climate change resiliency. Please add the term “Landscape Architect” to all cases where “architect,” “engineer,” or “planner” is used within the Draft Scoping Plan. In addition, please recognize Landscape Architects’ critical role in creating public spaces for communities that are healthy in all aspects. | ||
| Deborah,Herdan | As a nurse I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Greg,Giorgio | The use of fossil fuel burning automobiles for personal transportation needs to be reduced, whereby public transportation and alternatives like bicycle routes expanded. Infrastructure upgrades for passenger trains as they currently exist must be prioritized and new lines and inter/infra city routes developed ASAP. Without these measures, we [email protected] to gain significant ground on climate changing emissions and doom our chances of ever possibly reversing or significantly mitigating greenhouse gases. The air and water quality and subsequent direct result of citizens using more and better public transit systems create rapid and permanent health benefits for all. | ||
| Bonnie,Sager | Huntingotn CALM | Gas powered lawn equipment must be considered. Two stroke engine equipment is highly polluting, inefficient at burning fossil fuel. 30 % of the gasoline is spewed back into the atmosphere. The spillage and evaporative emissions are too often overlooked as additional sources of pollution. Public health is put at risk due to the fine particulates and toxic emissions of benzene, 1-3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and toluene created by this equipment, This is close point source pollution in our neighborhoods. Soil is often desiccated , compacted and beneficial microbes destroyed by the use of gas leaf blowers. Necessary pollinators are destroyed with their hurricane force winds. Landscaping is a billion dollar industry that too often gets lost under the radar. | |
| Richard,Speidel | Doomsday predictions about the earth warming have been made for decades. As just one example, New York City and other coastal areas were predicted to be partially underwater by 2015. Of course, this did not happen. Many climate predictions both past and future rely on computer models and assumptions. They often lack real unbiased scientific data, resulting in false predictions. The science of climate is certainly not settled; it is too complex to say with certainty what the future holds. And another major factor - our sun – may well affect global climate more than humans do. Therefore, the Climate Action Council should carefully consider the human costs of the proposed plan. It is wrong to drastically alter our economy and way of life over the uncertainty of how the climate may change in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. | ||
| Daniel,Spilman | Overall, we can not possibly move fast enough away from fossil fuel use to leave a sustainable planet for our grandchildren. Every feasible step must be taken quickly, so many measures like no new gas hookups for new construction and production of offshore wind need strict adherence. I support all the steps proposed, and we can not cave to any fossil fuel or other industries whining, as these companies have know for decades that the end of fossil fuels burning was coming, and most have done little to prepare. The survival of the Earth and all it's species is just a bit more important than the profits of corporations that have already reaped $billions in putting us on the path to world destruction. | ||
| Tamara,Hicks | Town of Naples | The plan needs to address the capability of the electric grid to support the additional load, especially in light of the objectives to move the majority of home heating and cooking to electric sources at the same time. Rural poor and rural low- and moderate-income families live where little or no public transportation is available and are thus dependent on personal automobile use. Low- and moderate-income families typically own older vehicles and thus will be the last to have electric vehicles available to them at a price they can afford. The Disadvantaged Communities Criteria excludes many low-and moderate income communities. The impacts on agricultural areas are understated and not well explored or mitigated in the plan. Competition for good agricultural land driving the price of such land up is exactly what the ag industry does not need at this time. Between hydro-electric, wind, solar, and nuclear power, 90% of upstate electric power needs are already met by non-fossil fuel sources. With the closing of the last downstate nuclear power plant at Indian Point, it is likely that well over 90% of downstate electric generation is sourced from natural gas! Meeting the Climate Act goals for downstate New York is thus going to come at the expense and impact of upstate New York as the need for land for solar farms puts additional pressure on rural communities, rural land values, and especially farms. | |
| Stepehen ,Bushart | If the goal is to completely eliminate new homes and appliances that use natural gas and gasoline powered cars, motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc, in NYS, then my wife and I, like millions more, will be leaving the state of NY. My youngest daughter has left NYS due to high taxes and my oldest is soon to follow, so this would be the "straw that brakes the camels back". This state as well as the country, are ill prepared to convert totally to electric and once done, we'll see rolling blackouts like we've never seen. The price of electricity will skyrocket to unimaginable heights and there won't be a thing the citizens of NY can do to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer. History has proven that putting the cart before the horse, just doesn't work. | ||
| Lauren,Fix | As a NYS resident and voter removing natural gas from appliances and gasoline for automobiles is a destruction of our state and lower-income and middle class will take on the burden. People are leaving the state because of the overreaching regulations and foolish rules. I vote and so do many and we will vote anyone who votes for this absurd plan - out of office! Voters make the rules - you have ignored us and we are all aware of these poor choices and bans. Who does this help - not the people that vote for you all! We are empowered to remove you for your bad choices. Please realize this before you agree to this very dangerous and poor plan! | ||
| frank,gigliotti | In reviewing the credentials and affiliations of the members of the Climate Action Council I feel they represent a very limited segment of NY. I feel the Council's viewpoint is too limited to be practical. New York is a state of many underutilized resources and has a very diverse physical and social structure that this Council does not adequately represent. I strongly feel this plan should be abandon. Respectfully, Frank Gigliotti | ||
| CRAIG,EHNES | Why does New York have to lead the way on switching from gas to electric? As of today I don't believe that the we can produce enough electricity to service all the things that are planned by 2024. Gas is more economical that electric. What are they planning on doing, going back to coal fired power plants? When everyone has to use electric cars (and having to charge them), heating, cooling, cooking, etc, what happens when they find out there isn't enough to go around? The US isn't the only country in the world! Europe, China, Russia, and most 3rd World countries are still using coal fired power plants, are we going to buy electric from them at a premium while the pollute the atmosphere? Wind mills are only economically feasible with government subsidies. The lifespans are only about 20 years and that cannot be recycled. Solar panels require lots of "rare earth" materials and that means lots of energy used to get them and another case of pollution when they are burned out. Plus the batteries require tons of energy make and where will they go when they are shot? We have cleaned up manufacturing a lot in the last 50 -75 years, but there are still trade offs. Who is going to wave the magic wand to make this all happen, or are we going to "feel" better about ourselves and just buy what we need from the polluting Chinese? | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Daniel,Leuer | Town of Middlebury, NY | Honorable Committee Members, I am writing to express significant concern regarding the transition timeline noted in the draft Climate Action plan from the use of fossil fuels for residential heating and appliances to electricity. Please consider those rural areas of NYS that currently do not have access to natural gas supplies and rely on propane and fuel oil as the primary fuel source for home heating and appliances. In addition, electric utility rates remain very high and reliability in NY rural areas is still problematic. Upstate NY winters can be very severe and lengthy with few alternatives to provide adequate and reasonably priced heating fuels. Additionally, the new requirements will place a significant burden on Agricultural interests and Dairy farmers who depend on propane for herd care and drying of grain crops. While I understand the necessity of reducing NY State's carbon footprint, we need to focus on improving our resiliency to climate change while advocating at the Federal level for agreements with states and foreign countries that are still heavily dependent on coal for their energy needs. Please examine the timelines identified in the draft scoping plan for realistic implementation dates. Respectfully, Daniel P. Leuer | |
| Christine ,Bosch | Plans to remove natural gas are a huge issue. Look at what happened in Texas last year. Thousands without power and they had freezing temps. Price gouging occurred at ridiculous amounts people couldn’t pay and a great deal of damage occurred in homes as they had no way to heat them Now you want to take away natural gas.. I live in orchard park and heat my home with a boiler that uses gas. Very warm and efficient..I’m warmer and can lower thermostat….electric heat I had elsewhere and was always cold and it was expensive and was only a small apartment…. Also power goes out here at least 5 times a year if not more and we have to heat our home 9 months of the year. I have a backup generator powered by natural gas so my home is always heated. You take away gas and we are in trouble. 5 months of the year it’s very cold out and I’ll be too cold to stay in house and damage will occur as power outages can’t always be fixed timely. Not to mention that no longer able to use a boiler means I will always be cold and forced to put a new expensive system in to heat my house. How is this helping the majority of people living with natural gas. It should not be eliminated. Find other ways to improve the environment…like big businesses that are really the ones hurting our environment | ||
| Andrew,Rigie | NYC Hospitality Alliance | The NYC Hospitality Alliance is a not-for-profit association representing restaurants, bars, and nightclubs throughout the five boroughs. We submit this testimony regarding the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan that could phase out the use of natural gas and gas cooking appliances such as stoves in our industry’s kitchens and mandate they transition to electric. While reducing our industry’s impact on the environment is a matter of critical importance to us, transitioning the more than 24,000 eating and drinking establishments in the City of New York off gas and onto the electrical grid poses significant operational, financial, and feasibility challenges and concerns for small businesses like so many of those we represent, and that’s why the City of New York exempted commercial kitchens from their law requiring the transition to electrification. We strongly support policies where the state offers incentives to restaurants and similar businesses to transition to electricity but mandating this transition would pose significant and unrealistic coordination and expenses on businesses to replace all their gas equipment, creating supply chain issues and unbearable cost, not to mention most restaurants prefer or need to use gas stoves to cook their myriad cuisines from around the world. We urge that like the City of New York, the State of New York also exempts eating and drinking establishments from this proposal, while also ensuring that rates to procure gas do not rise to unreasonable prices when so much of the gas current usage transitions on to the electric grid and reshapes the market dynamics. New York City restaurants are vital the economic foundation of our city and state, especially as we fight to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, we urge you not to places massive financial and operational burdens on these small businesses. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. | |
| Cheryl,Catlin | This is the worst plan proposed. The demand for electricity would be so high it will cause the costs to increase drastically. There is an abundance of natural gas and the use eases the draw on electricity. There are constant issues with the over use of electricity like power outages. There, to my knowledge, has never been a natural gas outage. This plan would also cause additional cost for everyone with gas appliances. We would be burden with the cost of installation of new appliances along with a new heating system. The costs to the people of NY would be overwhelming. The population of this state is dropping every year due to plans like this. NY is currently a difficult state to economically live and this plan would just increase those costs. | ||
| James,Trzaska | Your current laws and strategies' will be the demise & downfall of New York we are witnessing mass exodus of citizens from states and cities in California & NY alike, because of these policies. With that exodus is the exodus of taxes, you can only raise property taxes so much that people will eventually stop paying them, & death and destruction will ensue as NYS attempts to remove those non-payers who will defend themselves against the tyranny of NYS laws and politicians who are installed by not elected! | ||
| Dennis,Poust | New York State Catholic Conference | The New York State Catholic Conference, which represents the Catholic Bishops of New York State in public policy matters, submi ts the attached comments on the draft Scoping Plan developed by the Climate Action Council, which was created by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (CLCPA). | has attachment |
| Theodore,Saunders | This plan is so full of deficiencies and lacks intelligence. This so-called Climate Council wants to end the use of natural gas and gasoline in the near future. Eliminating natural gas and gasoline is a great idea, if there were suitable alternatives, which there are not. First off, if we are going to place a very heavy emphasis on electricity and electric vehicles, how are we going to generate massive amounts of it? Niagara Falls and other water generating plants cannot provide it. Lake Meade is drying up and cannot supply power out West and this is an example of a problem we could face in NY. Does the Council think windmills and solar panel farms will be capable of providing adequate power for the NY residents and businesses? In case they think they will, they are wrong. Are we are going to depend on a nature providing wind and sunlight on a consistent basis every day? Does this Council think NYS can control the weather? Foolishness! With electric powered vehicles there are additional issues. The batteries contain toxic materials that cannot be recycled or disposed of safely. Maybe in the future they will be, but this technology had better be in place before we commit to all this electric power consumption. How are we going to power large vehicles like semis? How will we be able to charge these batteries? Has the Council considered our current power grid? It will need to be upgraded before we start using copious amounts of electricity. This proposal is so full of weaknesses and thought that it should be disbanded and replaced with people who are better suited to look at all our power resources and needs including natural gas and gas. By the way, are China, India and other nations going to move to electric power and get rid of their use of gas and coal? I'd like to hear what this Council thinks they will do. | ||
| David,Little | NYS Resident | Everything should be moved out 10 years; we need more time to actually work through all the issues people will encounter. The intent is good though. | |
| Barbara ,Krajewski | In my opinion the plan: - does not adequate address the wildlife problems of large scale wind power generation not to mention the generation inefficiencies of wind power; - does not address nuclear power, a power with little carbon footprint; - does not adequately address waste from electric technologies, including the amount of battery waste. Nor does it address the associated earth element problem; -does not address potential conflicts with Native American lands within the state; -is calling for a dramatic agricultural change but does not adequately describe the changes. And most importantly, costs are not realistically addressed. The plan is grandiose, a redistribution of wealth based on marketplace manipulation. It is an upheaval based on climate events of the last 50 years, while the climate has been changing since the "big bang". Subsidies seem to be a large part of addressing costs but subsidies must be paid for, too. | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Regina,Shafir | New York government has an obligation to its citizens. Less cars, more green space. Green roof initiatives and solar subsidies are an important way to reduce oil dependance. | ||
| Elaine,Weir | The reason I am commenting today is because like many New Yorkers, my daughter suffers from asthma. As we know Air Pollution can cause asthma and heart disease. The air pollution is so bad in Westchester County that my daughter moved to the Adirondack where the air is cleaner. Not everyone can move away from air pollution. We need to address this air pollution that is according to the scientists is also causing climate change. However, we must not use false solutions such as Hydrogen and Renewable Natural Gas. Hydrogen is not unsuitable for heating homes because of its low energy density. Delivering the equivalent amount of energy require pumping five times as much hydrogen into homes as methane. Also, Hydrogen is hard on steel and electronics and has very different physical and combustion properties compared to methane. Using it would require significant infrastructure upgrades and new appliances designs that currently are not available. Renewable natural gas is just methane, causing all the same problems as methane. It will leak and contribute more than carbon dioxide to global warming. Burning it inside homes will release the same deadly indoor pollutants. It is just as dangerous as any other methane gas. Please do not be fooled by these false solutions. They will slow the transition from fossil fuels and further injury our planet. Thank you for the comprehensive Draft Scoping Plan. Please hold to your high standards. Implement the CLCPA targets without distractions by fossil fuels multi-million-dollar campaign of misinformation. Thank you for all your good efforts. Keep up the good work. | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Kyla,Clark | In regards to the Climate Action Counsel’s Draft Scoping Plan: NYS Climate Vision to completely eliminate the use of reliable fossil fuels and forcibly switch to unreliable and inconsistent renewable energy sources will be highly detrimental to the health of the state as a whole. First, a free state and government of the people, by the people and for the people, cannot, should not, and will not force its citizens to comply with the decisions and regulations formulated by a committee of unelected members. Furthermore, the government and its committees do not have the authority to decide what type of vehicle New Yorkers drive or how far they drive it; how they heat their homes, or the appliance with which they choose to cook. Secondly, expecting an entire state to run solely on electricity generated by wind and solar power will not only prove to be extremely costly to New Yorkers, but will also result in electrical shortages or worse usage restrictions. New Yorkers cannot be forced to rely on renewable energy. The sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow and the majority of the state is buried under several feet of snow for about 6 months out of the year. | ||
| Paul,Pignataro | In my opinion this plan is over aggressive in terms of the need and impact of the plan. The United States continue the lead the world in clean energy. I see no need to handcuff our economy when the impact will be minimal when other countries continue unabated with how they use fossil fuels. Also, the negative financial impact on all middle-lower-senior citizens cannot be overstated and dismissed so easily. How will these groups cope with the increased costs? This entire plan is a “pie in the sky plan” which in a perfect world might work. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD. Please go back and think of the profound impact you are placing on ALL New York residents. Certainly there should be changes and the plan should not be thrust upon on as is. I appreciate the opportunity to give my input. | ||
| Michael,Garrett | It is my belief that the mere idea that man can destroy the earth is nonsensical and arrogant. I do strongly believe, however, that man can make the earth uninhabitable for himself. I also believe that the only way to prevent this from happening is by educating our children, by our example, that what we do to the earth we do to ourselves! History teaches me that the heart of man will not be changed by laws and until the heart of man understands just how dependent he is on the good health of the earth for his own survival, all the laws passed will be nothing but politically driven rules aimed at garnering power and wealth for those passing them with no empathetic regard for others. Those passing the laws under the guise of being responsible stewards will see no sacrifice and endure no pain while the rest of the population is held back and, in some cases, crushed. If those presently rallying beneath the environmental flag were really interested in preserving the environment we would see a serious effort being made to teach children just how the environment operates and how dependent man is on it. We would not see schools filled with political propaganda cloaked as "science" and we would not see teachers and students drinking water from plastic bottles. It remains true that I have never seen a law making body whose sole interest was in making the rest of the population behave in ways that benefited the law making body and this proposed set of legal demands is a prefect example of this self-focused behavior. Michael F. Garrett, P.E. | ||
| Ed,Fey | Our most important task is to displace all fossil fuel sources by installing enough wind, solar, storage, and transmission lines to provide about 80% of grid power, as fast as possible. The other 20% should come from 'clean firm' sources (GHG-free sources available 24/7). Studies have shown that system costs increase greatly when intermittents exceed about 80% of the electricity supply due to the need for overbuilding and increased storage. NY is fortunate in having a significant amount of clean firm energy from nuclear and hydro to power the grid when intermittent sources are idle. However, as demand for electricity increases, additional clean firm sources will be needed. I get the impression that NY is planning to get additional firm power from Canadian nuclear and hydro sources, but this is not stated in the plan. Whatever the plan is for additional clean firm power, it should be clearly stated in the CLCPA. I fear that public resistance to putting in all the needed wind solar and will lead to calls for continued use of gas-fired plants. I am totally opposed to using any fossil fuels as 'firm' power even if they claim to add carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS won't capture all the CO2 emissions, and inevitable leaks from natural gas infrastructure (pipelines, abandoned wells) will add methane, a greenhouse gas at least 25x more potent than CO2, to the atmosphere. Instead, to provide additional gigawatt scale clean firm power I think we should take a serious look at expanding nuclear capacity at NY's existing nuclear plants. They're already connected to the grid, have the necessary infrastructure including on-site storage, occupy much less land than wind or solar, and have been pretty much accepted by the local populations. We should consider KEPCO, a Korean company, that recently completed two 1.4 GW nuclear reactors in the UAE pretty much on time and within budget with two more under construction. | ||
| Celeste,Song | While I have not read this proposal in detail, I appreciate the brief summary sent to constituents by State Sen Gallivan. I very much support all of the initiatives he reviewed. Please move this forward post haste. | ||
| Eileen,cifone | National Grid | Members of the Climate Action Council Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The work that the Climate Action Council has done over the last two years creating the Draft Scoping Plan and now listening and accepting comments from all corners of the state is so important considering the seriousness of addressing Climate Change today!! Climate Change is clearly one of the most critical challenges of our time and we must work together to solve this while maintaining a safe, reliable and affordable energy system for all. As an employee of National Grid for over 30 years, I am very proud of the Company’s commitment to our customers, our employees, the economy and the safety of our energy system while tackling the climate crisis. National Grid serves over 4.2 million customers in the state providing both electric and gas in all regions from very dense areas to more rural and all levels of socio economic backgrounds. We are confident that our perspective and expertise is invaluable in understanding the needs and challenges of all residents and businesses in the state. The final plan must be practical, pragmatic and cost effective. As a result, National Grid launched our vision to fully eliminate fossil fuels from our gas and electric systems, hence providing a Better Way to achieving the requirement s of the CLCPA on time while still providing choice to our customers. We know that electrification will play a crucial role in meeting the climate goals but achieving meaningful decarbonization will require more options. Our vision will leverage existing networks to decarbonize the gas system with cleaner fuels like renewable natural gas and hydrogen. We have all watched the transition of renewable electricity which with improved technology has made this more efficient and affordable and we can expect the same for hydrogen and renewable natural gas. Another important aspect which is first and foremost | |
| Ann,Lapp | NYS Lawmakers are out of their minds. How about all the legislature adhere to these guidelines on their own money, not the tax payers, and then let me know how this works out. Is there any plans on how the middle class is supposed to live? | ||
| Kenneth,Lay | I am an extremely strong supporter of this act. NYS and the planet must act quickly to address global warming before it becomes significantly worse. One issue I would like to highlight in particular is the excessive use of helicopters in the New York City area. There are over 10,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports, as well as further heliports in East Hampton and Westchester. Each flight produces 40x the fuel of a car in an hour, burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago and worsening particulate air pollution, and tear through the skies of the city disrupting livelihoods and harming children's ability to learn. Hudson River Park includes the W 30th St heliport, directly next to the country's busiest bike lane, and inside a PARK, where the helicopters pour jet fuel into the air where people are exercising and enjoying outdoor time. Tourist flights, commuter flights, etc., they are all utterly unnecessary, and completely at odds with New York's efforts to combat emissions and climate change. The vast, vast majority of New Yorkers will never enter a helicopter in their lifetimes. They directly negatively impact quality of life in an already-noisy city and exacerbate inequality by encouraging excessive carbon emissions from the wealthy. The NYCAC plan must include a ban on these nonessential helicopter flights, and prioritize sustainable and reliable mass transit instead. Do not permit these disgusting nonessential helicopters to continue to ruin our air and heat up our planet, for nothing. | ||
| robert,lamantia | this is a short sighted and extreme plan;look at california and europe; please stop this madness and do something reasonable; this will destroy the state | ||
| Nancy,Stark | or at least the last 3 or 4 years, and probably longer, Central Park has been under daily and unrelenting helicopter assault from the skies. The noise is ear-splitting, bone-jarring, and it never stops. It's not just that helicopters fly over the park -- no, they hover over the park -- for 20-30 minutes at a stretch. Eventually they leave, but then more helicopters arrive within the hour, and they hover too. Why are they there??? What are they looking for??? Why has no one stopped them??? My usual hangout is the tennis courts. I remember the time a helicopter was flying so low over Court 8 at the tennis courts that I thought it would land on either Cindy's or Kiki's shoulder. I wondered if the people in the copter wanted to play doubles. And, when I see them flying so low and hovering for so long over the Reservoir, I wonder if they've brought their bathing suits and are planning to dive right in for a swim. Why are they here??? What are they looking for??? Why has no one stopped them??? As I say, my hangout is the tennis courts -- where I was a regular tennis player for 56 years. I don't play any more, but Central Park has always been the most important place in NYC for me. I have done freelance work there. I have written chapters of my book there. I have written many, many of my lyrics there. My usual time in the park on a really beautiful day lasts about 6-7 hours. Or at least it used to BH (before helicopters). Helicopters are especially fond of beautiful days, too. They never miss one -- no, not even one. They are even more helicopters and they hover overhead for even longer. The sound of a helicopter extends 3/4 of a mile in every direction. You can't escape the noise by moving away as you would in the case of a noisy lawnmower. You can only throw up your hands and leave the park entirely. With your fingers in your ears as you hightail it out of there as fast as your legs will carry you. | ||
| frank,bartkowiak | Why is this suddenly public now? Why has this agenda been under the radar? When agencies secretly have sessions without public knowledge or attendance, your credit ability is questioned. The expectations stated to implement these draconian changes are crazy. COUNT ME AS NON COMPLIANT! | ||
| Jeffrey,starin | NextGenNoise.Org | See the data from StopTheChop.org a non-profit dedicated to eliminating non-essential helicopter traffic over populated cities. Their information, below, says it all. . . Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. These include Manhattan's Three Bridges, Brownsville in Brooklyn and Old Astoria in Queens. There are higher rates of childhood and adult asthma, even premature death due to environmental factors. Steps must also be taken to reduce low-flying LGA and JFK air traffic: bring thousands of good-paying jobs to NYC by relocating these carcinogenic producers (the airports) outside populated areas and put them offshore like many 1st. world countries are doing. The time is now. Asthma rates are the highest near aiports and below flight tracks leading to those airports. Reactivate the now dormant air quality sensors thorughout NYC and install more! How can you have climate justice proposals without accurate data, unless, of course, the city is afraid of what it may find out. | |
| Marilou,Bebak | NO! This is nuts. I have gas stove and gas water heater in my home. When they break down how will I buy a new one? I'll drive to Pennsylvania to get it. All electric vehicles loose power quickly in the cold and therefore have lousy mileage. Stop this nonsense. | ||
| Bruce,Swiecicki | National Propane Gas Association | Please see the attachment for a detailed submittal of comments. Thank you. | has attachment |
| Sandra,Johnson | Dear Governor Hochul Administration: I am alarmed at the plans you have for our lovely state of NY! Everything you touch leads to major disaster and hardship for the everyday, hard working residents of NY. It is like you live in a utopia bubble, void of wisdom and understanding of reality and then leave destruction in your wake. You line your pockets with our money and praise yourselves for how noble and ingenious your plans are for our lives are. We drive through Cohocton, NY...we see your monstrous windmills destroying every bit of beauty placed there by God on those rolling hill. Low income country folk live there in that ugly mess and noise. You have taken away the natural beauty of their land. Very sad and criminal what you are doing and what you continue to push on all of us. My family and neighbors strongly oppose your Climate Action Draft Plans. Your council is grossly compromised with corruption and fabricated science. How did you become SO DUMB?! | ||
| William,Kennedy | One word: NO. | ||
| Kent,Manuel | Delaware County Planning Board | ||
| Jaissa,maran-Kaiel | I vote NO on the ill-advised and high-handed attempt to force the Citizens of the State of New York to endanger themselves and their families by relying on electric for fundamental life sustaining functions. My electric was out for three days this spring after a four hour snowstorm. I don't believe that you are capable of maintaining safe living conditions through a NY winter using electric especially if you think you are going to force citizens to overload the grid further by requiring the use of expensive experimental electric cars that most can't afford to buy, run on batteries made by child slave labor. Polluting our state with poisonous lithium from those batteries seems to violate the stated purpose of this piece of nonsense. This legislation is not designed to better the lives of those of us who live here. Rather, it seems designed primarily to precipitate the collapse of an industry that is disliked by certain powerful people by recklessly throwing the responsiblity of providing the basic necessities of living (heat, food, and transportation) on an unreliable industry incapable of maintaining reliable delivery of their product. You're going to kill people. | ||
| Terrence,Cantwell | These climate laws are based on technology that might exist someday. NYS is sitting on a lake of natural gas. Time to harvest our resources and unleash the producers. | ||
| Michael,Melville | Local union 3 IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Michael Melville and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Ronkonkoma, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Michael | |
| Craig,Zuchelkowski | What you do to N.Y City should stay there an not the rest of the state. We the real people of New York State do not agree on your plans for anything ,your just trying to look like you want to help the State but it is really to help your political agenda. | ||
| Wayne,Reynolds | |||
| James,Hufnagel | We need to electrify all sectors of our economy and stop relying on fossil fuels. Also, Gov. Hochul needs to sign the 2-year crypto moratorium bill right away. We need to stop crypto mining in New York State in order to reach our 2030 and 2050 emissions goals. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: While the draft scoping plan offers a number of concrete recommendations, in this version there are a number of "soft" suggestions that rely on the hope that businesses and individuals follow these suggestions. This is unlikely to ensure success in achieving the CLCPA's goal of at least an 85% reduction in GHG emissions across all sectors by 2050 in comparison with 1990 levels. All recommendations should be mandates for each industry sector that should be legally enforceable against businesses and individuals. These mandates should specify targets for individual businesses when feasible. The CAC must review the state’s regulatory structure by industry sector to determine what legislative and regulatory changes are necessary to ensure that structures are put in place to mandate that all businesses in New York comply with the clear GHG and co-pollutant reduction targets by a schedule the conforms with the CLCPA, and put recommendations for such changes in the Final Scoping Plan. When appropriate, GHG reduction targets should be set for individual large businesses, like utility companies. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| David,Kut | All mandates listed in this initiative have too aggressive of a timeline. The power grid in my area has been fragile for years with frequent power outages. I can't imagine what will happen with mandatory switching to electric occurs. The electric infrastructure needs to be greatly upgraded first before overloading it. Also mandating a changeover to electric is NOT the way to convince people to switch - make electric alternatives attractive by lower pricing as most residents will experience higher costs to their budgets with these mandated changes. As a disabled person on a fixed income having ONLY electric choices will create an unnecessary financial hardship on myself and my family. Please reconsider the timeline on these changes, we can save the environment and our economy with a slow moving, well thought out plan for New York and its families. | ||
| jerome,prince | we need gasoline and natural gas! ours is the cleanest, cheapest , and most plentiful you have not gotten all the bugs out of switching to electric!! i think climate change is total b-------!!! politicans are just folloeing the moneymakers on this! it's time you listen TO ALL THE PEOPLE ! i will vote no for any politican who supports the green new deal policies! listen to the people on who you represent!! | ||
| Kara,Colburn | I firmly disagree with all of the above actions. | ||
| Charles,Burke | Having read the draft plan, I cannot help but wonder whether the persons responsible for this plan have ever experienced a winter in upstate New York. It is not uncommon to lose electric service for days at a time due to even mild snow storms, never mind the blizzards and n'oreaster storms we experience. Eliminating natural gas, propane and wood as options for heating and cooking will be a death sentence for many upstate New Yorkers. Homes and farms in our region rely on dependable energy to survive the winters here. The electrical grid has proven unreliable countless times. During the relatively mild winter of 2021-22, we had three multi-day power outages. We survived because of the propane furnace and propane kitchen stove in our home. As a former National Grid Gas Operations Analyst, I know from experience that the natural gas delivery system for upstate’s urban areas is far more reliable than the electrical delivery system, nor is it going to be impacted by the increased number of electrical vehicles mandated by the proposed plan. Such vehicles would put an increased strain on our electrical grid, and are themselves poorly suited for use in colder climates, especially when there is the ever-present risk of being stranded on the road for hours due to snow storms. As a former elected official in Oswego County, I witnessed and dealt with emergency situations where families lost electricity for days and even weeks at a time. Our small town would have been unable to provide them with necessary shelter or auxiliary heat sources without the use of propane heaters and gasoline generators. What I see in this proposal is nothing short of an attack upon the rural upstate residents of New York state, our way of life, and our economy. This proposal need to be dropped, and persons with actual experience in the delivery of both electricity and gas for residential and commercial purposes need to be involved in drafting a new proposal. | ||
| John,Murphy | Local Union 3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is John Murphy and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in NYC, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, John Murphy | |
| Sara,Gronim | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council, While the draft scoping plan offers many recommendations that can be carried out by state agencies, it also includes too many proposals that depend on voluntary action by industry and residents rather than legally enforceable mandates. I ask that the final Scoping Plan set forth detailed recommendations for regulations that have enforcement mechanisms. Overall, these regulations must be crafted such that each sector of the economy contributes appropriately to achieve both the interim and the ultimate CLCPA targets. Furthermore, as later adoption of renewables is likely to be harder to achieve and be costlier, the final Scoping Plan should seek opportunities to mandate faster progress in the early years. Thank you. Sara S. Gronim | ||
| James,Roach | Solar and wind will never be available in sufficient amount to replace the petroleum and natural gas that is currently required for our energy needs. | ||
| Nancy,Hardy | I VOTE NO! This is just plain a bad idea. Electricity is not a stable resource in Upstate New York. Even a small snowstorm this past Winter was enough to put the power out for three days. Your plan will put thousands of people at risk to their life on any given Winter storm. The infrastructure is not sufficient to handle the additional pressure of everyone's heat and transportation needs as it is. The downstate area depends on power generation from Upstate. Now you want to make everything run on electricity. What happens to the entire power grid when Upstate has its typical snowstorm activity every Winter? | ||
| Jessica,Meister | My name is Jessica Meister and I live in Peekskill, NY. I work for Sustainable Westchester Inc, a nonprofit in Westchester County. I support strong climate action and want to see NY transition to a clean economy by 2050. Building new structures with the plan of sustainability, incorporating new technology, and transitioning energy sources to renewable energy are all essential to reaching our goals. This is a huge undertaking and will take the dedication of many people across different sectors. Protecting forest lands and ecosystems is also essential to keep a balance with nature. Thank you. | ||
| Kirk,Spite | This timeline is out of touch with reality and scope of cost. Nuclear fission is the only way to achieve energy sustainability. This should be the only funded efforts of NY taxpayers. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND IS NOT HOLISTICALLY CONSERVING ENERGY. Stop the charade and bogus tax expenditure on the basis of “climate” holiness. It’s a joke and we all know it. | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | Green hydrogen and fuel cells look very promising, to my lay-person eyes. Production should not involve fossil fuels, of course. Green hydrogen production plants can realistically only be located where both water and power are in ready supply. But hydrogen seems like a good way to store extra energy from solar and wind production. We should fund research into this while also encouraging the use of existing commercial products. We should subsidize scrubbing equipment for peaker plants if necessary, or find new storage options. Perhaps we can build green hydrogen powered peaker plants. | ||
| Jeffret,Cervoni | Totally unrealistic, the cost would be excessive. Plus not enough electric power to supply the demand. I am against the plan and would not vote for it. | ||
| Michael,Burridge | The American Institute of Architects New York State | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Climate Action Council: It is critical that the final Scoping Plan have directives that are explicit in terms of goals and time lines so that state agencies can revise their rules and regulations appropriately, and so that the legislature can enact any necessary additional laws. For example, the final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each industry sector must achieve by the years specified in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. And the Final Plan should also specify the state agency or agencies responsible for enforcing the CLCPA targets for each sector. Taken together, the mandated industry sector reductions shall achieve the CLCPA targets. The draft Scoping Plan does not yet specify GHG reductions consistently for each sector, and proposes targets that will not achieve the clear CLCPA target of an 85% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Moreover, interim benchmarks will be essentially for evaluating the progress each sector is making towards the overall goal. Thank you. Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | I am in favor of more nuclear power generation. It could be co-located with facilities that use hot water, perhaps salt mines that use water to make brine to extract salt. Proper siting is critical - there are many geologic faults in NYS. Energy efficiency is critical. Using less energy is better than finding new sources of clean energy. Tax credits are not an attractive mechanism for NY State, school district, and local government retirees, who don't pay state income taxes on their pensions, so they can't use non-refundable credits. We should have a carbon tax, especially for vehicle fuel but also for electricity generation. Section E7 - I agree we should invest in grid upgrades. I added solar panels and an EV charger to my house. This increased the overall load on the service into the house (about 2.4 Kw maximum), and created a larger reverse current TO the grid during peak sun hours (about 3 Kw maximum). This must impact the grid and supply challenges for National Grid. I was not aware of SF6, and am glad this is being considered. On page 185, the plan talks about a communication protocol for appliances. The history of the Internet of Things is full of very weak security. There is a value to having devices communicate and alter their behavior based on demand and / or supply, but there is a huge danger to having everything connected to the Internet. Any software should be made highly secure and have "fail-safe" mechanisms to prevent devices from destroying themselves, other devices, or the network. Page 186 - funding should be directed to solve problems. Low-income communities certainly should be helped as needed, but the focus should be on solving the state-wide emissions problem, not helping specific communities (poor OR rich). Page 187 - waste should be recycled, not burned. Waste-to-energy plants seem counter-productive. | ||
| David,Krypel | retired national fuel gas corp | You r draft scoping plan is a radical proposal that will be burdensome and a costly failure for all! I have always been concerned with protecting the environment for future generations, but your proposal is just another government boondoggle. | |
| Keeth,Fiocco | IBEW | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Keeth Fiocco and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Lindenhurst, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Keeth Fiocco | |
| Eric,Durkee | The timetable for this transition is unreasonable, unattainable with current projected technological advances, and unnecessary. The projected impact on climate change is negligible but the cost to our state and its people will be enormous. This plan will increase the exodus of families and businesses from NYS. Please extend the timetable for this transition considerably. | ||
| William,Blarr | Integer | This will be yet another great way to send Business to other states .Yes we should always look to improve our environment but let's try and understand what that really means .Driving everyone to Electric how ? Wind and solar will not support what is needed .Natural Gas is clean and abundant why not use it .Lets be honest so called clean energy is not clean at all .Turbines and panels have a service life and when that's reached they become waste . This is not about the environment this is about overreach and control . How about looking out for our country and hold on to our jobs and money .Do we really think China ,Russia ,India are going to follow this green path ,they grow while we revert to a third world country with a very small ruling class . | |
| Cliff,Moses | Town of Eaton Supervisor, Vice Chair man of Madison County Board of Supervisors | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council, Though the Madison County economy has diversified considerably over the past decade, agriculture remains a dominant sector in our area. We host over 500 farms, more than half of which are family farms, that employ roughly 1,300 New Yorkers with a total annual payroll of $19.2 million. These farms and jobs provide working families with a good living. But let’s be clear. No one is getting rich off of family farming in Madison County. That’s why I am concerned about the cost prohibitive changes coming to this industry and our communities should you approve the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. No one cares more about a clean, health environment than small farmers. The environment is their livelihood. And yet, the proposals within the Draft Scoping Plan intended to clean our environment goes too far, too quickly. I urge you to reject it. Farm equipment and reliable labor are the lifeblood of the agriculture sector. I worry that forcing small farms to change over to 100% zero-emissions equipment and vehicles within only eight years will force many of them to cease operations. And I worry that requiring farm labor to transition to zero-emissions transportation over that same timeframe will make it impossible for them to get to work. Here in rural parts of New York, not everyone can ride a bike to work or has access to public transportation. Aside from the cost, we have no real understanding of the availability or reliability of zero-emissions vehicle or equipment. That’s because no analysis has been conducted on the matter. The Draft Scoping Plan rushes headlong into a grand experiment without any real idea of how it will affect the agriculture community. As Supervisor of the Town of Eaton and Vice Chairman of the Madison County Board of Supervisors I strongly urge you to reject the Draft Scoping Plan. Let’s clean the environment, but not at the immediate expense of working men and women in rural New York. | |
| John ,Becker | Chairman, Madison County Board of Supervisors | As Chairman of the Madison County Board of Supervisors I am writing to register two objections I have to the Draft Scoping Plan created by the Climate Council under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. My first objection is that this process is happening way too fast. I believe the comment period and any follow up decision-making meetings should be pushed back much further than the current shotgun schedule. These are serious issues that will be affecting millions of NYers and they deserve serious discourse. As John Howard, former chairman and current member of the state Public Service Commission, has observed, the Draft Scoping Plan has no mechanism to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars required to implement it. Mr. Howard concludes those costs will have to be passed on to taxpayers. New Yorkers already pay too much in taxes. We need more time to discuss this and to iron out enormous details included in this plan. My second objection is the push for increased solar farms under this plan. I am worried about solar farms buying up good farmland and putting local farms out of business. In Madison County we have over 500 farms, more than half of which are family farms, that employ roughly 1,300 residents with a total annual payroll of $19.2 million. These farms and jobs provide working families with a good living. We need a way to protect these farmers, and plan that recognizes their needs. I urge you to once again extend the public comment period again and bring all impacted parties to the table. I cannot support the Draft Scoping Plan in its current form for the above mentioned reasons. | |
| david,carpenter | Your environmental strategy is bizarre to say the least. Whats the rush? In the last 200 years the global temp has risen 1.5 degrees. Google it. Here we are at the end of June and the night temps are in the 40's. As I travel the region and see the wind farms and the ugly bird killing wind turbines, half of which are idle I think what a blight on the landscape. Also, the most recent solar field constructed locally is being overtaken by weeds. Another eyesore. The infrastructure for e vehicles charging stations is almost none existant and if there were where how do you plan to power them? Finally, the global warming issues fall under one term known as Weather. | ||
| Debra,Lowery | Are all the Politicians in NY gone totally brain DEAD! Eliminating Natural Gas and Propane for heating is absolutely CRAZY! First of all the Electric structure in NY State can not handle the Capacity now so what happens when it doubles and triples? Secondly, with propane being eliminated you will also eliminate all Americans they love to Camp, travel with trailers, see our beautiful country in a way they can afford it and oh yes, NO BARBEQUING! All Electric Cars, I'm 70 years old and I pray to God this doesn't come about till I'm dead and gone. Has anyone looked at the UK and issue they are having with electric cars and battery disposal? They have 1000"s and 1000's of cars that is cheaper to replace then replace the electric systems so their Junks yards are filling up and storage lots are filling up with all these dead units, what's the plan? I'm a legal and law abiding Gun Owner and I follow the laws old and new but what are you doing to protect my rights as a legal Gun Owner? Do you really believe stricter Gun laws that only the law abiding Citizens will follow will correct Gun Violence by Criminals, Wake up - Criminals don't care and don't follow laws we can't inforce!!!! Crazy people commit these useless crimes and most tell people they are going to do it but because of HIPPA Protection Laws, their doctors can't say anything. How about correcting the HIPPA Laws so these people can get help first and doctors and psychologists can get guns away from those who should not have them... Cars kill 100's more people every day, is it time to take cars off the road and protect the innocent? Wake Up and Smell the reality of the world! | ||
| Gary,Haensly | And you wonder why everybody is leaving New York. | ||
| Mark,Adams | The US is a world leader with regards to providing clean electricity. We where net energy independent on January 20th, 2021, and we are now the laughing stock of the world as ESG is going to force us to become weaker and less wealthy. We have a 300 year supply of natural gas and with that we could use to easily find a smooth transition to nuclear baseload, gas peaking plants, and renewables to fill in the gaps. BUT NO! Let's screw it up, cause havoc with the grid, create situations will people might freeze to death in the winter and sweat like hell in the summer. And let's make housing LESS affordable for people who can least afford new changes. Electrification requires raping the earth via mining to extract all the Co, Cu, Ni, Mn, Ag, Au, Li, and other metals necessary for this transition. It is clearly OK that much of that comes from counties that HATE US, but who cares about that. Or maybe twelve year old in Africa can pick up the slack and get this stuff out of the ground for twenty five cents per day. LOOK AT THE ENTIRE COST OF THIS CRAP. You aren't. This plan was written by a bunch of goody-two-shoes activists who need to go to China and see if worlds greatest polluters might get on boards with this nonsense. After reading this crap I cannot wait to retire and move to a state that respects their population. | ||
| Robert,Michals | This opportunity to express concern about this ill conceived plan to eliminate natural gas as an energy source should have been made more readily available to the citizens in a less obscure fashion. Why have I not received information concerning these draconian plans in a more timely manner and perhaps by a mailing that would present these issues. As an 82 year old living on Social Security, who has memories of shoveling coal into a furnace and sifting through the removed ashes to salvage unburned bits of coal, I firmly object to the intentions of my government to progressively restrict the use of natural gas. My present location is adjacent to numerous natural wells . Additionally, natural gas is present below my property. Yet my fuel bill has increased by 50 percent. For gas removed from beneath my property! The plan to base utilities solely on “green energy” is ludicrous!. The grid is not adequate to support such a change. The requirement to upgrade service will require more copper and aluminum with the associated mining and refining procedures which have significant “carbon footprint”. The material costs of a wind turbine are significant. There is a huge graveyard of destroyed non- recycleable turbine blades in Wyoming. Solar panels have a limited useful life. Sun and wind are not 24/7! NY shuts down a nuclear plant and adds a CES charge to my electric bill to cover the cost! The inmates are running the asylum! | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Staff that is doing the work of writing this scoping plan: Thank you for your tremendous work in tackling such a complex problem as decarbonizing our entire NYS economy by laying out recommendations for a full energy transition that simultaneously protects low-income New Yorkers, environmental justice communities, and workers in fossil fuel-related jobs. The draft scoping plan was surprisingly readable, and both the text and the appendices had a wealth of concrete information. Your work is deeply appreciated. In the final scoping plan, I urge you to carry out the full intent of CLCPA, despite pressures from interests that would subvert the progress that we so desperately need. While many recommendations in the current draft would do that, a fair number are too weak to achieve a full 85% reduction in GHG emissions compared with 1990 levels by 2050. Agencies that will revise their rules and regulations in response to the final scoping plan need clear benchmarks and time tables across all recommendations. Elected officials, who generally have their eyes on the short-term issue of the election cycle, need to keep their sticky fingers out of this particular pie. Science and justice are the guides here. The work NYS could do to address the climate crisis has so much potential for good. We could be the leader in a fully renewable energy economy with all the benefits to health and employment it would bring. We could be a leader in making NYS more just, more equitable through relieving pollution burdens, making energy affordable across the board, and expanding a well-paid workforce.. I urge you with all my heart to make the final scoping plan as strong as it can possibly be. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | ||
| Andrew,Cadel | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Clearly these are creating a huge negative environmental impact with no corresponding benefit. Thank you for your consideration Andy Cadel | ||
| John,Cullen | Northville Beach Civic | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, and the fact that the heliports are located in densely populated areas! | |
| Colin,Shearing | Grandstanding on your soapbox about how people heat their homes over some b------ emissions nonsense is exactly what I expect out of the leadership of New York State. It also disproportionately effects people in the more rural areas of New York where you have already restricted their ability to even heat their homes over nonsense with wood stoves. As a leadership body you can’t even get everyone the broadband that has been promised for years. You really think your going to be able to make sure no one falls through the cracks with something as important as heating their homes? I’m sure this plan looks good from the throne, but is unsustainable. You want everything electric to reduce our use of fossil fuels yet where do you think the extra electricity is going to come from? It all comes back to the use of fossil fuels. Because that is the driving force for our entire economy. You want us to end up like California, a welfare ridden cess pool then so be it. Most New Yorkers expect nothing less from your b------ leadership. | ||
| Haley,Nuernberger | New York State's climate leadership is not leadership at all. Instead, the plan to force citizens of NYS into abandoning fossil fuels and depending on unreliable, intermittent, and unaffordable renewable energy sources is a destructive plan that hurts people. The plan is detrimental to human flourishing and to human freedom. New York State government should back off and respect the citizens of this State. People should have liberty to decide whether they want to drive a gasoline car or an electric car. They should not be forced to make this decision. School districts and the communities they serve should have the right to determine if they will use gasoline or electric school buses. Such a decision should not be forced upon them. If a person wants to install a gas oven or gas furnace in their home or business, they should not be prohibited from doing so by the government. A government that forces these decisions upon the citizenry is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. In addition, the Climate Action Council is a powerful body composed of UNELECTED individuals. These members will have power that affects the day-to-day lives of the citizens of this State. This way of doing business is inherently anti-American. | ||
| Patrick,Kelly | NY Resident | With our natural gas reserves, we should NEVER eliminate the use of that resource in our current or new homes. Stopping everything to fix the environment may sound great but we do not and will not have the resources to generate the electricity we will need to change everything. The timeline is way to short. | |
| Andrew,Pawlak | Did I miss the carbon footprint estimate to change to EV's. Replacement cost of 289 million registered vehicles, plus farm equipment, tractors, fork lifts, skidsters, mowers, snow blowers, tools etc. What about raw materials to produce all new products above and the cost to retool manufacturing plants. Than the personal costs to switch to these products? | ||
| James,McKitrick | American Forest Foundation | [Comments attached] | has attachment |
| Lisa,Cochrane | Changing everything from has to electric for homes is going to hurt NYS residents as well as its economy. The majority of residents already cannot afford electric vehicles. The electric grid also cannot handle it. Take a look at what's happening in California. The thought of making everyone change their homes to electric from gas will cost residents a ridiculous amount of money that they don't have. It will also put a large amount of businesses out of business, which will in turn, make our economy even worse. The cost for electric heat is extremely expensive. This is not clean energy. If you look at how solar panels are made, the result of the disposal of electric car batteries, etc.... It's time to give people an option. If you want electric and can afford it, then fine. If not, then the option of gas should still be available. This is coersion at its best. The price of gas continues to be high, pushing individuals to buy electric cars. This state is pushing their residents to the brink of losing everything they have worked for and pushing them to leave. I am no longer proud to be a resident of NYS. Disappointed New Yorker, Lisa Cochrane | ||
| Mindy,Anderson | • No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; • No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; • No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; • No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; • Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and • Installing geothermal heating by 2040. Looking at the above points - where does it take in an account for rural and low income New Yorkers. Changes take money. Also - was it taken into consideration that the electric grid can not handle the charging of vehicles, also houses would have to have updated electrical service to handle this. What kind of power runs electrical power plants? Isn't that fossil fuels? So you tell the household they can't use them, only to have to increase the use of them to produce the "clean" energy. How many tractors are going to be able to use electric for fuel? You can't charge up in the middle of a field. This is just another thing that will drive residents out of New York! | ||
| Thomas,Martin | I want to go on record supporting the New York Society of American Foresters comments submitted on the draft scoping plan. Also the draft plan needs to give consideration to the large amount of carbon that is held in long term storage as forest products such as wood housing, furniture and other products. | ||
| Bradley,Herman | I am 100% against this current plan. Yes, I am in favor of switching to alternative clean sources of energy but the elimination of natural gas is not the answer, a long term transition is what is needed. Heat Pumps do not produce the heat required to maintain a comfortable home in the winter months. I had a house with a heat pump and ended up tearing it out due to its lack of efficiency. Also, the infrastructure is not in place to support all aspects of life switching to electricity. We currently have huge issues with RG&E locally, meeting demand and providing new electric services. We will overload the system and will be much like California, who experiences brown outs. Solar arrays are not efficient in our region and neither are wind turbines. Regarding vehicles....nobody has figured out the long term plan for the decommissioned batteries in vehicles, in addition most batteries are purchased from China or the raw materials are there, thus increasing our dependence on a foreign adversary. | ||
| Sue,Fetzer | It's sounds great to want to implement all these programs, however let's get realistic. Natural gas is the cleanest burning energy and we have plenty. Living up north, we lose power numerous times and have no power. If we were dependent on electricity, there would be more health issues from the cold and a possibility of death. We do not have the infrastructure to put through this massive program. It always sounds great on paper, but isn't the best way to move forward. I strongly urge that this program be tossed, and more sensible alternatives be put in place. | ||
| Alma,Reynolds | The proposed Climate Act would create a hardship for thousands of people. Not just those who would need to replace heating, stoves, water heaters, etc. in their homes, but many companies would be put out of business and their workers become unemployed. In addition to the home issues, it would cause farmers to have to replace all machinery with electric ones. Since some farmers work sunup to sundown, this would require them to purchase multiple batteries in order to have the power necessary to keep working. This is an added expense they don't need. Even NYSEG would be in trouble as approx. 40% of its power is generated by natural gas. The electric companies would not be able to supply the power necessary with these changes. At a minimum brownouts, but more likely blackouts would occur creating additional hardships for many, and if these were to happen when it is cold, people might even die as they have no other option for heat. | ||
| Barry,Horton | This current proposal is not realistic or financially sustainable for most people. Currently our country does not have the electrical infrastructure to sustain what’s outlined in this radical proposal. In natural gas is one of our most economical forms of energy and shifting to a total electric carbon free economy is not practical at this point in time. There are still many safety issues related to electrical cars. I am totally against this proposal in its current form. This proposal going forward will have significant negative impact financially on the middle and lower class population. | ||
| Richard,Duva | Local 3 IBEW | While I am GREATLY in favor of reducing our carbon footprint, I am also a realist and understand the importance of JUST TRANSITION and the NEED TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR FAMILY. You cannot just eliminate someone's career and expect them to find a new one. As the transition from our current forms of power to the new greener means to power our grid takes place we must consider where the present employees will find their new niche. While there is so much attention and money being allocated towards training and workforce development for the new projects there needs to be as much attention paid to the existing workforce and their transition to their new careers. Lastly, I would like to express that there are already trained IBEW electrical workers from the local communities who are prepared to work on all phases of these projects, Construction, Manufacturing and Maintenance that will only require minimal training specific to the task they are working on. We do not need to develop a workforce when one already exists and continues to grow through the efforts of the IBEW and our Local Unions. | |
| Anthony,Comstock | This is garbage you have no right attempting to restrict the way way we fuel our cars and homes. This cannot be put into effect. | ||
| Paul,Wujek | What happens to millions of autos that use gasoline? Alternative electric vehicles are not perfected nor totally reliable. Let alone battery fires from a rare earth that China has the world market on. Plus where do these 'UN' recyclable batteries go? The NY electric grid will not be sufficient to supply electricity to all the 'STUPID' plans to electrify everything. What happens with the gas appliances that need recycling when they are done. NY doesn't have enough recyclers now. You politicians ( not all) are looking to make laws that are NOT well thought out! Change is good when it makes sense. Right now all you are doing is bowing down to current trends that tell people what they want to hear. Not smart. Plus don't do things JUST TO GET VOTES! Remember...you were elected to represent us, not do what you personally feel is right for all. Thats why I'm writing this. THINK. | ||
| Dave,Williams | This entire initiative is ridiculous and does little to really impact the environment as you are replacing clean burning natural gas with emissions from power plants and the construction, manufacturing, and maintenance of solar and wind sources. As a scientist, engineer, and executive of a successful manufacturing company, I find it disturbing that this level of pipe dream and incompetent thinking makes it this far. I agree that solar, ground source heat pumps, and continuous improvement related to efficiency are all good directions, but totally eliminating our most reliable and environmentally friendly source of economical power is just dumb. Do the math and you'll realize that our infrastructure could never support a fraction of the electrification that is planned and never will. Stop focusing on these pipe dreams and put plans in place for real positive steps towards energy conservation and intelligent initiatives, or in 20 years you'll be the only idiots left in NY, sitting in the dark. | ||
| John,Fulford | Natural gas is one of the cheapest sources of energy and safest it is used to generate the electricity which if you ban the natural gas you won’t have electricity The cost of electricity versus gas for heating a home is higher natural guess is reliable electricity goes out in storms you could run your generators from your natural gas source to your home in an emergency you are taking peoples right to choose what’s best for them actually New York State should allow fracking and we should have more natural gas why were getting rid of our natural gas and coal India and China are building more coal fired power plants so how does this help the world | ||
| Roger,Karlinski | I object to this overreaching mandate to lessen and eliminate natural gas and wood burning. The use of electricity to produce one BTU of energy is far more expensive than natural gas (NG) and electricity, if usage is increased, electricity is not as plentiful. The power grid is far more susceptible to outage than NG. My electricity has gone off a dozen or more times in an outage, some for a good length of time, however my NG has never once failed. If my home in Buffalo loses electricity in the summer heat or the cold of winter, death can result. I object to dying at the tyrannical prohibition of natural gas. Natural gas is clean burning, especially with high efficient burners. My furnace has an efficiency rating of 96.4% which is far more than the conversion of electricity to heat. This climate action will obsolete millions and millions of devices such as boilers, furnaces, generators, stoves and hot water tanks. Absolutely unacceptable. So many farms and barns un upstate use wood for heat. It will be tyrannical to prevent wood burning. You will only drive so many people out of the state reducing the population to half of what it is now. | ||
| Amy,Fialkowski | The passing of the Climate Action plan will be detrimental to New Yorkers. It will be costly and the infrastructure is not there to support all electric society. All electric vehicles will also not be feasible in our winter climate. Stop doing things that meet your agenda and listen to New Yorkers and look at the cost that it will cause New York as a whole. Many people will move out of the State which they are already doing. | ||
| Michael,Manning | The plan achieved one mission. Appease a vocal minority view. We need natural gas, and oil as well as electric. We cannot have a plan that eliminates any energy source. This includes solar, wind, nuclear, oil, and natural gas. There are studies showing that the that the grid cannot handle a complete change to electric. It is not secure and it subject to going off live from major storms. The electric grid need repair BEFORE we decide on an all electric plan. Finally, people cannot afford all electric heat. Especially, the poor. Gas is still cheeper. The governor is wrong, and we are going in the wrong direction | ||
| John ,DeFrancesco | Common Council President, City of Rensselaer | As a local elected official who struggles like many others to balance a budget and maintain and replace equipment, all while keeping costs low for taxpayers, I feel compelled to express my opposition to the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The proposed changes in the Plan would be challenging for the City of Rensselaer to afford and sustain. Certainly the Climate Action Council understands that municipalities don’t simply procure equipment at the spur of the moment, right? Instead, our procurement process is the result of months of planning and sometimes years of preparation. Many investments have already been made to purchase – and bond for -- gas powered vehicles for the Department of Public Works, the Police Department, the Fire Department, and more. Many of these plans were part of multiyear budgeting efforts and the costs are spread into the future. A shift to electric vehicles would be unaffordable and unrealistic without significant state financial relief to cover all of the associated costs as well as a guarantee of equipment and associated product availability. Unfortunately, as has been reported, the Draft Scoping Plan makes no mention of how these costs will be borne, nor by who. The Draft Scoping Plan should be rejected and retooled to analyze the full cost of its mandates on municipalities like Rensselaer and identify funding mechanisms to pay for it. Thank you for your time. | |
| John ,Proctor | Right now we don’t have the necessary power sources for electric cars. Where do you stop on a road trip to recharge? NY has offered new companies, large amounts of electricity for their plants, to move to NY. Now you want to heat homes. Electricity is very expensive, as reflected in my bill. Natural gas is the cheapest way to heat your home. We were exporting it 2 years ago, because of it abundance. We were petroleum independent 2 years ago. I can understand wanting to to use other sources for energy, but we’re not there yet. Please consider not waisting your time on this right now. Low our taxes and maybe people might return to NY | ||
| Sheila,Fleming | As a citizen of New York State, I want to voice my strong opposition to the provisions set forth in the proposals by the Climate Action Council. I believe a more moderate transitional plan should be reflected in the proposals. Total elimination of currently affordable natural gas options for home heating, cooking, etc. is an overstep by the government. These proposals will result in severe economic hardship to the people of New York. The steps outlined in this plan represent an underlying goal of fundamentally changing, not for the better, our American way of life. | ||
| Aaron,SImon | Hello, My biggest concern is the huge amount of work that will need to be done to the infrastructure to handle the transition to all of the proposed electrical conversions. As Service Manager at two automotive dealerships and having to deal with the installation of BEV chargers at both facilities I have seen issues come up that scare me about the switch over of homes and vehicles. At the one facility we have an 800 amp service from the power company, if I have 5 BEV cars charging at the same time it requires 400 amps, 50% of my total available power to the building is used just to charge 5 cars. At the other facility we cannot even get enough power from the existing power line on the main road to even install new technology BEV chargers. Now you throw 3 million new BEV cars and 1 million all electric homes. Where is all the power going to come from? And how is it going to be transferred to the end user? Aaron Simon | ||
| Mary,Myers | This plan will drive even more New Yorkers out of the state it’s a terrible plan and will be very expensive, geothermal alone is thousands and thousands of dollars , vote no! | ||
| Paul,Runfola | This is not about good stewardship of our environment...it is about achieving control over the public. Please vote against this absurdity. | ||
| Jacquelyn ,Wierzba | For the average American, which no longer even qualifies as middle class thanks to the irresponsible spending of the current illegitimate federal government and administration, electric cars are financially unobtainable, what makes you think electric or whatever “sustainable” alternative is going to be afforded by the economically oppressed citizens of NY? Is the NY State Governor and Liberal Democratic representatives that far removed from reality?! I say NO to this ridiculous plan | ||
| Cristin,Glasner | These plans and goal times are unrealistic and ridiculous. Your goals do not the include the biggest contributors to emmissions like China. You also have members of congress still using private jets to fly around the country. These electric cars are dangerous and are causing fires already. The cost of electric has also doubled and the price if these vehicles are insane. Please use some common sense. People will not comply with these ridiculous rules to make you feel better about your self for "saving" the planet. Try helping the people that are actual citizens of this country and focus on more important things like finishing the boarder wall and helping our police and military enforce the laws of our country. Maybe keeping millions from entering our counrty illegaly would be a great start. Try opening up the pipelines for our own oil instead of begging our enemies for oil. Our people deserve better and you should be ashamed to even present these plans when so many are suffering and have suffered for 2 years under your crazy lock downs and mass FORCED vaccination. We need to get back to normal not add more crazy rules and regulations that will not help in the overall world carbon emmissions. I will be praying for you and will pray you take these comments into consideration. Please do what is best for our country not what is best for you or your career personally. There is no room for this WOKE agenda in our lives. | ||
| David,Deforest | Cordelle development corporation | According to the EPA’s website on Global Greenhouse gas emissions the USA accounts for 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions. China & India account for 47%. What effect in real numbers will the CAC plan have on climate change? I cannot find the answer in the plan. The answer is most likely none. Natural gas is the bridge between oil & coal power generation and renewables. It should be embraced not banned. The most common type of fuel used to heat a home in NYS is natural gas. It's used in about 60% of American homes nationwide. (energy.gov). The US has seen carbon Emissions from electricity decline by 27% between 2007 & 2018 resulting from switching from coal to natural gas for power generation. California energy prices have risen 6 times faster than the rest of the country since 2011 due to the reliance on renewables. This is due to the fact that there are hard physical limits on wind turbines and solar panels. The maximum efficiency of a wind turbine is 59.3%. The maximum achievable power density of a solar farm is up to 50 watts of electricity per square meter. The power density of a natural gas plant and nuclear plant ranges from 2000 to 6000 watts per square meter. Adopting zero emissions standards that prohibit gas/oil use in large fuel burning equipment will probably result industry relocating to states here the business climate is less restrictive. Industry will seek states with lower cost utilities and leave NY. Why would business come to NY? The cost of construction will be higher, regulation costs will be higher, compliance costs will be higher, utility costs will be higher and the power grid probably not be as resilient. On page 136 the CAC proposes refuge spaces similar to a YETI style cooler within a multifamily building or community center to protect residents in the likely event of a power grid failure during a prolonged cold snap or multiday heat wave. That sounds more like 1985 communist East Germany than a modern-day United States | |
| Amy,Byrne | NO! This will further hurt working families, drive more working families from our state and create more issues than it helps, just like the COVID policies of the last two plus years. Of course, perhaps that's your goal. | ||
| Josh,Walter | Morning, I am commenting on the Climate Action Council developing a Draft Scoping Plan in 2019 for future changes that will go into effect as soon as 2024. I was going to read the plan, then downloaded the "341 pages" of garbage, and realized I was not. NYS. has a massive amount of fossil fuels underneath, and in our ground? This whole going green B.S. government made up propaganda needs to stop. The whole pollution propaganda stuff needs to stop! Pollution is going on much more around the world. Grow up stop the B.S. | ||
| Daniel,Nawrocki | In regards to NYS moving to "Green Energy", we should be looking to work with what we have on the table right now. Our Nation, and World are on a Foolish Path, being led by People who really have No Concern for the Majority of Citizens. Two years ago, We, The USA, were Energy Independent, and supplying energy to others Worldwide. We are now being led to believe that We can just flip a switch, and change over to "your Dream World". We the People, the Majority, do NOT want your "Green Programs" Forced upon Us. As shown many times, these concepts do not provide what We Need, at this time. The Hazardous Waste produced by the EV's, will be just another Nightmare, self inflicted, with No where to dispose of it, causing MORE Damage to Our Environment. Our yearly Climate changes, are not friendly to many of the obstacles, such as Wind Driven, and Solar Needing, as We in NY can go for Weeks at a time, without the Sun appearing, in some seasons. We are far better off, using the Fuels that are readily available to Us, FOSSIL Based, that we have proven to be the MOST Efficient, and We, the USA, had achieved the Lowest Carbon Output, Worldwide, as compared to All the other Developed Nations. I could go On, and On, but I'd like to ask Who, and What is Driving this Foolish Concept ? We the People, would like to See, Full Forensic Personal Financial Audits, into ALL those Involved in Co-ordinating this Program, to see where the Money is actually coming from ? This whole Program, Reaks with the smell of the New World Order. KEEP IT !!! Thank You for asking Our Comments, and Hopefully this will come to pass, and the Money be spent to Actually Benefit "We the People"... | ||
| Michael,Stoklosa | Professional Engineer of 29 years weighing in. The electric grid in NY is currently maxed out, in my neighborhood we have several blackouts a year due to failed wires and transmission overloads. I've attended several SUNY/NYSERDA heat pump seminars and even the sponsors admitted we don't have sufficient in state generation capacity. In Erie County I've lived through several multi week storm blackouts. Natural gas heated and protected our house from freezing. These are storms from the 70's up through the October Surprise Storm. If you live out of the cities in Upstate NY you need natural gas, propane and oil. Consider electric cars. Live in the city and park on the street. How do you charge at night? What's the range of these vehicles for long distance driving? My wife works out of state several times a year. Will she have to break up her trips over multiple days to recharge her vehicles. What happens when you get to a recharge station and there's a waiting line? Where does the electric come from to charge these vehicles? What about waste from lithium ion batteries, solar cells and fiberglass wind turbine blades? Several articles I've read indicate most of it is currently non recyclable. In the late 90's NYSERDA was pursuing natural gas to replace coal as a clean energy source. What happened to that. All electric appliances. Houses will have to be rewired to accommodate the change in energy source. Upgraded panel boxes and upgraded house service could cost thousands of dollars. Air source heat pumps do not work well at Upstate low winter temperatures. Ground source heat pumps are expensive to drill the wells. | ||
| Mark,Petrush | At first perusal this plan looks really nice, and highlights the many benefits of converting to electric by using some snappy graphics and calculations. However, there is a reality check needed on the state of New York's electrical grid infrastructure, not to mention the large amount of investment by homeowners that would be required to make the plan work. Face it, this just is not going to happen in a state that cannot even maintain it's roadway and bridge system much past a third-rate level. The increased taxes required to fund this fantasy would send residents scurrying for the borders. Overall, I'd say that this plan looks like the output of a committee of starry-eyed but wet-behind- the-ears high school students. I will say that I did appreciate the reforestation plan, and would recommend focusing on that as a good starting point, and put the rest of the plan on the back burner until the roadways and power grid can catch up. | ||
| Janice,Neace | Your plans to eliminate natural gas and fossil fuels are crazy. There is absolutely no power grid in place that an accommodate this. Electric heat is not feasible and would leave us totally in the cold when the power goes out when it is freezing outside. If electric was better we would be using in now voluntarily. Electric vehicles are not practical for people who don't live in the city or have to travel out of state like I do or need to tow things. Stop wrecking NY state. You are leaving me with no choice but to pack up and leave after living here my whole life. | ||
| MICHAEL ,WALSH | No to all of it! | ||
| Sharon ,Zaluski | Stop the madness, I want a gas stove, furnace, car etc, | ||
| Michael,Zywar | Good Morning I feel this is a one sided plan because plans are all pro electric, I realize it is a good thing but I don't think it should be put in a time limit to shove down the tax payers throat that is has to be this way.. Homes in our area are older and do you all realize with todays economy the stress you will put on all residents of NY to comply with this. The cost to the tax payers is to much to ask for in this world today. I am a highway Superintendent and the trucks we bought years ago have no soot in the exhaust and my one truck is pre def, it is just as clean as the day we bought it so I don't believe the problem is as bad as you say. Look at china when we had the pandemic they saw mountains they have never seen before because of no vehicles on the road. We should worry about our different countries that don't comply or care and start doing something about that before you start shoving that around because if no one else try to do this in the world what good is is doing but costing money to the NYS tax payers. | ||
| DONALD,HAYDEN | getting rid of natural gas will only hurt people on fixed incomes and poor people. | ||
| Joseph,Morcelle | Since energy affects everything I believe any changes should not be forced but introduced gradually with thought on the effects that will be felt by the lowest in society. Any attempt to force change will just cause turmoil and separation. As changes are made and introduced costs to the public should be a considered. An all in approach I believe will just fracture an already divided country. Thank you | ||
| Michael,Wolf | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." Even non-lead fueled helicopters are a sig | ||
| Peter,Campanella | We need to has gas to live. With our gas our country stops. As an electrician I can tell you that we do not have the capabilities to “ plug in “ everything. You up need to stop the tail from wagging the dog on this issue . I fully expect that war is going to come soon,with everything that is happening in the world you think now is the time to cripple our country? | ||
| Cathy,Caruana | This plan is nuts!!! No way will I support this! | ||
| Joseph ,Swartz | I’ve been living and working in Lower Manhattan since 2004. Over the last 10 years the number of helicopter flights over our neighborhood has increased dramatically. The volume levels can increase to deafening levels, especially when there are multiple helicopters flying both north and south at the same time. The majority of these flights are tourist flights - flights which negatively affect tens of thousands of NYC residents. Please restrict tourist helicopter flights. | ||
| Paul,Wydro | This will only drive more business out of the state and put an undo burden on the tax payers. Life in NY State is difficult enough financially, now is not the time to add expense to our everyday life, with zero return on this investment! | ||
| Linda,Brown | Against this plan | ||
| Meredith,Drake | Good plan. Proud to see New York heading in the right direction. Thank you for hammering this out. | ||
| Cody,Corke | Who has evaluated the effects of mass use of geothermal style heating? Lowering the temperature of the Earths crust can not be good. | ||
| Teresa,Winship | I am strongly opposed to these actions. There is no viable, sustainable substitute for natural gas. This will be detrimental to New Yorkers and is completely unnecessary. | ||
| Harold,wright | After looking over your plans I feel these goals are impossible to reach on your timeliness. First of all the general public can not afford these ridiculous goals. Cost to convert homes to all electric or geothermal heat would be astronomical. Second point,electric vehicles are extremely expensive,not enough are being produce, there are not enough charging stations and they don'tgo very far on a charge. The production of batteries for these vehicles leaves a massive footprint on our earth. Precious metals have to be mined( mainly by China) to produce them. When the batteries are no longer any good how do you plan on dispose of them? We do not produce enough electricity now in this country to prevent blackout, how are you going to provide enough for the extra demand for the. There are several parts in your plan that are just Not feasible to obtain because of cost,availability,production and your timeliness. Overall, I feel this is not a realistic plan to achieve at a cost that justifies the end. Thank you Harold | ||
| Elissa,Skillman | This is the most ludicrous plan I have ever seen. You will destroy the economy in NY, which is already in poor condition. You will absolutely bankrupt the rural portion of the state and cause a significant strain on an already taxed electrical grid. Your agricultural industry which is still a significant part of NY's economy cannot exist under these regulations. This pran would be the nail in the coffin of NY. | ||
| Lalonnie ,Sponeybarger | I disagree with thus plan. It is not practical and does not serve the people of the State of New York. Gas is a natural resource and dies not harm the ground. Gid has given it as a resource to be used for His people. Tge agenda set firth by this committee is to destroy the economy and the people of New York. | ||
| Jennifer,Rogers | Don’t have my vote! | ||
| louise,belulovich | |||
| Adam,Victor | TransGas Development Systems, LLC | ||
| Carl,Popp | Climate change mandates should not be imposed until alternative energy infrastructure and other proposed solutions are actually in place, completely tested, working, up and running and able to replace all present energy sources and activities. Heating with firewood is a renewable energy source and should not be banned. Present recycling programs have few markets and much of what is now recycled actually gets recycled and reused. | ||
| LuAnn,DiCorso | I am not for New York State completely going electric and solar powered! I don't want us to have scheduled blackouts like California has! - Our wind turbines in Buffalo didn't work for years because the parts where to expensive to replace them. - Cold winters in Bufaalo will not be good for electric cars. - NY doesn't power enough electricity to heat all our homes along with business, and charging electric vehicles. -There isn't enough minerals needed to make electric car batteries in the world which means we will all lose the ability to own a car and be like China walking or riding bikes. - Junk yards will have tons of electric cars in it because the batteries will cost more than buying a car. - Blackouts will cause damage to food supply because generators will need to be run on electric and not on gas as they do now. NYS is trying to cram powering by electricity and Solar down our throats. They are trying to control us and how we live. NYS is going backwards not forwards!! Hey NY, are you trying to send your population to other states by making these wrong decisions? Well you are on the right track to executing NYS population by staying on this course. Use our natural resources. Heating our homes by gas is fine because we need it to keep warm. Keep National Fuel in WNY, New York State to help us survive!!! Everyone can do their share to keep our water ways clean and litter free along with land. Go back to glass bottles that get recycled not plastic bottles!.Get rid of cigeretts so people aren't throwing their butts out the window or dumping them in store parking lots. Reuse metal instead of everthing plastic. MAKING AMERICA better doesn't mean stopping using natural gas or petroleum. You are raising gas prices to make people think that electricity and solar power is the only way to live. The goverment wants to scare people just to control us. Wake up people, it's not to save the world it's to control everyone of us! Say no to this bullcrap!! | ||
| Lee,Broad | You have ignored inestimable facts and conditions driving any solutions you consider. You have an end game in mind and fit all data, such as that you find, to support your views. I consider you idiots of the first order. May you live forever. | ||
| Paulette ,Niewczyk | I am strongly opposed to the NYS climate plan. Specifically, I oppose the following proposed plans: No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and Installing geothermal heating by 2040. Eliminating the use of natural gas, propane and heating oil will substantially increase the state’s demand for electricity and prove costly for consumers and businesses. It is much too expensive to live in NYS as it it, considering the high cost of living and the excessive state, county and sales tax. These proposed climate changes will cause further strain on residents and businesses already struggling to stay afloat. Enough. Leave us alone already. Keep pushing and this entire state will be a ghost town, haven’t we already lost enough businesses and residents to Florida and the Carolinas? Start to read the room and do as your constituents ask. | ||
| barry,rehfeld | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Anne,Goergen | I say no to this bill . | ||
| Charles,Strickland | Excellent draft law! Exactly what NY residents need to do to control climate heating. Well done! Carry on. | ||
| Nancy,Young | Alder Fuels | As detailed in the attached comment letter, we note our support for the Draft Plan’s recognition of the potential for low-carbon t ransportation fuels produced from sustainable biomass, including sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), to be a significant contributor to meeting the State’s goals, and we urge the Climate Action Council to advance proposals to further incentivize such fuels. A critical incentive would be to make SAF eligible for crediting on an opt-in, voluntary basis under the Clean Fuel Standard the Climate Action Council is proposing to recommend. | has attachment |
| Thomas,Schum | The idea of "carbon justice" cannot be applied. The amount of electricity needed to power a state full of electric vehicles would need to come from carbon-based generation; so the purpose would be defeated. Business in NYS is tough enough to maintain, without chaining it to requirements that cannot be met unless most of said business relocates to outside NYS. The electric grid would not be able to support such a huge demand. Some politicians are about "freedom of choice." Where is the freedom of choice here for the citizens of NYS? | ||
| Dorothea,Prine | Both of my sons have left or are leaving this state and if we could we would follow. The state has become a dictatorship telling people that they can no longer use gas appliances and must go electric autos by 2035. Where is the money coming from to wire a home to charge an electric vehicle or in our case two? We all ready off set our carbon foot print with 42 solar panels in our back yard and if we could go to geothermal we would. We can not on our retirement incomes as we are watching them shrink everyday. Our home has new energy efficient windows and is heavily insulated. We heat with propane gas and wood pellets, I cook with propane, heat water with propane and dry my clothes with propane. Yet I would be forced to go electric when my stove gives out or the furnace and who is going to pay to rewire my home for these new appliances. I hate New York State and wish I had never been born here. I would be better off in the poorest state in our nation than in New York. The Dem and Republicans in this state are all nuts.You are the reason why people are moving out and going to other states. My Dad was a Republican all of his life and my Mother the Democrat and I am glad that neither is around to see the Empire State become a dictatorship. | ||
| Scott ,Zelli | There is no part of this bill that will not drive New York residents to other states. We are most certainly heading into a recession and this energy bill drives us to spend more money that we don't have to comply with new energy source mandates. All this will do is put more people out of work and send them packing. Choice is always a good thing. Please do not support any part of this bill. | ||
| Grant,Armstrong | This proposal seems like absolute insanity for people who are already barely able to make ends meet. Simply put, this is going to end up costing people an extraordinary amount of money up front, which we simply don't have. | ||
| Cort,Baker | Whoever came up with this or endorses it is INSANE. This is absolute garbage that if actually implemented would make living in NYS impossible. Stop your foolishness. | ||
| Ann,Laubacker | Our electric grid is over taxed already. The time frame is too much, too soon. Wind and solar won’t make up the difference, especially with our Buffalo area weather. Natural gas is abundant NOW. And the infrastructure is underground away from weather damage. It is cheaper. It heats my home, my air conditioner, my stove, my water heater, my clothes drier. I am a senior on fixed income. It would be impossible for me to replace all of this or pay higher electric bills. Don’t change something that is working and reliable. | ||
| Donald,Smith | It’s clear the current administration is not concerned with those they are supposedly representing. This green deal is a facade that will result in a huge financial burden on my family while delivering undependable, renewable energy. Additionally, the opportunity for “choice” which is the foundation of a free market, is being removed when it is obviously not the will of the people. We must not move forward with this plan or we’ll only need to produce enough electricity for the two or three families left in this state. Sincerely, Donald Smith | ||
| Gina,Sacca | As a person with a chronic illness that affects my joints, riding a bicycle or walking for long periods of time for means of transportation is not an option for myself. Which leads me also to mention that the use of more electricity than natural gas is not any better for the environment and also will cause electrical costs to rise. The cost of converting all natural gas resources to electric would be astronomical, especially for a middle class family such as mine. This is an over reach of the government. | ||
| Louis,Boehm | Retired | It should be acknowledged our country has already been a leader in pollution controls. Because this has affected the price of our products we are now outsourcing most of our manufacturing to places with little or no such environmental controls. It is a noble effort to achieve as much clean energy efficiency as possible but this must not be done in an irresponsible rush that does not consider all the pitfalls and negative implications such as cost when we already have a 30 trillion dollar national debt. We cannot count on being almost totally dependent on foreign manufacturing forever, particularly from our philosophical adversaries. What happens during inevitable hostilities, if our currency faulters? We must be able to be reasonably competitive. and self-sufficient. The production and disposal of electronics and batteries are not innocuous to the environment. | |
| Linda,La Scala | This is a horrible, ill-advised plan that will only serve to hurt New Yorkers and make our lives more difficult. We already live in one of the most highly taxed, highly regulated states in the nation, and this plan will make living here even more expensive and more restrictive, forcing many to move out of state and further bleeding the NYS economy. What is the end game here? And why are unelected bureaucrats making these decisions for us? This has to stop! | ||
| Adam,Maciejewski | After carefully reading the recommendations, I am whole heartedly in favor of the proposals, granted that they incorporate social justice into their creation. The less advantaged communities will need financing, and navigators trained to facilitate the transitions outlined within the recommendations. If we can help people understand the benefits to them directly, and before social media can spread false narratives, then the transition will be made that much easier and faster. Thank you for working to make the world livable for our children. | ||
| Scott,Yunke | I will never give up.my gas furnace...and fire place.. this is the best engery.. electric will never work as well .. this is socialist plan on our communities.. this plan is not going to work well. This will add cost all passed on. And ultimately all this Green Energy will make no difference if we can't get other countries like china, Russia & India that pollute the crap out of the planet... | ||
| Tyler,Cooper | Need more nuclear energy and look in to Reusing/Recycling nuclear waste in to more energy. Also Heat pumps do not work in upstate NY in winter due to very cold conditions they don't work below freezing temperatures so removing Natural Gas Furnaces is not a good idea unless we find another alternative for heat one idea is just Force the use of the highest efficiency furnaces until we can find a alternative so that we can minimize the co2 production and squeeze the maximum amount of heat out that can produce it efficiency without the high cost of electricity also solar panels in the winter get covered in snow so very low production in electricity so they don't help a lot. | ||
| Ellen,Scheiderer | Drastic but essential. Very forward thinking and incremental changes are well thought put | ||
| Steven,Gray | If the concern is about climate change and the environment, this is a horrible plan to fix it. Current-day wind turbines operate as massive NET LOSSES (in terms of energy invested vs output) due to energy consumed in obtaining input material for, construction of, and the actual material lifespan of each turbine. A more efficient plan would greater utilize nuclear energy, which, on average, produces ~360 times more USABLE energy than wind turbines ANNUALLY. A nuclear power plant will also likely outlive the average wind turbine by 15 years. To simplify: on average, 576 wind turbines would be needed to produce what 1 nuclear power plant could produce. That opportunity cost includes arable land, and wind turbines can only produce and be viable in specific locations in specific conditions. Wind turbine blades are also notoriously difficult to recycle and very costly when done, so most retired blades? They end up as trash, buried in the ground. (I will omit the slightly more efficient solar panels from this in the interest of the character limit.) If going green is the goal, efficiency is the name of the game, and nuclear is hands-down the best solution. Wind will also create more environmental harm than good. If switching from gas energy is the goal, wind has a 0% chance of effectively replacing energy demands derived from gas, as it requires more input energy than it is capable of outputting. If preservation of resources is the goal, wind will prevent the growth of new forests, occupy land that could otherwise be used for farming, and waste what precious resources and land we have. This plan will cripple current energy production methods in order to substitute less efficient and less environmentally-friendly energy. Do NOT continue with this plan if you truly care to help save the Earth and the people who are most vulnerable to the changing environment (women, children, and others listed in Chapter 2 of the plan). | ||
| Paul,DiCorso | This is absolutely b------. I don't even know where to begin. As a Professional Engineer licensed in three states, I'm telling you there is no possible way a modern society can hope to meet its energy requirements using wind and solar. Natural gas is the cleanest, most efficient and environmentally friendly energy source there is. And it's plentiful and economical. The only reason the US has reduced its carbon emissions so much in the past several years is that we have been replacing coal power plants with cheaper and more efficient natural gas. Furthermore, the entire claim of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is dubious. There is no evidence that a trace gas such as CO2 or even methane is affecting the Earth's temperature. Given the lack of accurate data to begin with, there is no way computer models can possibly predict temperatures so far into the future with the kind of accuracy required. So this whole charade becomes a futile and meaningless excersize. The only goal here is to control a free people by controlling our means of energy production. | ||
| John ,Rodgers | I’m all for reducing emissions but not when it breaks the average family I think due to the oil companies building all the gas stations is one of reasons it stayed economical. We have to take baby steps due to our taxes have to build charging stations, new tow trucks that can charge a car since gas isn’t an option. We should open the drilling back up get off everyone else’s payday and at same time maybe introduce a gas/ electric hybrid which I know they have now but give incentives to buy one. Give people more time to adjust the country more time to reinforce there grids and move at a real pace. Another problem is china russia Iran India etc. will never stop polluting the air or shut down mines and there factories produce dirty products due to technology there basically in our industrial revolution phase. As far as buildings and homes not having any fossil fuels I. can’t see that far in the future they better be sure or people are going to freeze to death or over heat if whatever is supplying the power doesn’t work as well as everyone in that think tank thinks. I believe baby steps is better and safer then leaps or not doing anything. | ||
| Leonard,Goldstein | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Noise pollution is an environmental public health threat. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, and the fact that the heliports are located in densely populated areas! If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing and commuter flights is an injustice to all New Yorkers. The health and well-being of NYC residents should come before the economic interests of the relatively few. | ||
| Christopher,Tait | This type of plan is unacceptable. This adds to inflation and adds to cost that taxpayers will have to pay. Home renovations Presently this type of plan has already been expressed and implemented and our economy is in havoc. Our electric substations will not be able to handle the excessive usage. If lawmakers continue to proceed with these types of plans, the working families like myself, will not be able to survive in this state. We will also need to leave, along with our extended families, who are also taxpayers and working families. Please do not pass this plan. Thank you. | ||
| Julie,Poplaski | 1. Biomass as a fuel is a horrible way to address climate concerns. Trees are amazing carbon dioxide sinks but also play a very important role in stopping erosion, filtering water, protecting animal and plant diversity as well as a heat sink. 2. Waste Incineration is not a climate smart decision. We should instead help municipalities be able to compost and have reuse stores. There needs to be accountability for companies to invest in better packaging and recycling of their products! 3. Subsidizing cover crops for farms and other land managers is a great plan. There should be a financial benefit to protect the soil and do the extra work. 4. We should offer incentives to everyday people to pursue making their homes and properties more sustainable. We have seen that people want to garden and plant fruit and nut trees. We should encourage this with tax incentives. And make sure we help local growers and municipalities to meet those needs. Small farms and property owners should be able to thrive not just large scale farms. The monoculture farm is not climate smart. 5. We need a group of people to oversee and educate the public and municipalities on how and why they will benefit from adapting these policies and what they actually are. 6. Train a workforce to fix solar and renewable energy. I know people who work on Solar and Geo in NY State. There are not enough trained workers. If we are to outfit our communities we need to build trust, resilience and knowledgeable people to work on them. Trade schools perhaps in areas with high dropout rates. 7. Water is life. No one and certainly no business should be allowed to pollute our waters. We need to plant more buffers, incentivize good land practice and keep out pipelines. 8. Food security needs to be addressed . This is a part of good climate policy since people can't care about gas vs. electric if they don't know where their next meal is coming from. Too many places in NY are without an adequate grocery store nearby. | ||
| Nina,Musinsky | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan. Currently, 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, etc. These fossil fuel-guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State Park, Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. They are one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport - and the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport do not even provide "transportation" but instead needless, polluting joyrides. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains & nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat. A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are horribly loud with the low vibration caused by rotating blades, and they fly at low altitudes over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways. These are densely populated areas! They are a veritable PLAGUE. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. | ||
| Thomas,Weisbeck | There are several issues that impact the timeline of this plan and the practicality of it. I will only address these: There is no practicality of zero emissions generation of electricity. The creation and maintenance of electrical power generation equipment alone will generate not only carboniferous but hazardous waste as well as require the generation of electric power on a reliable basis (inclement weather and at night) to do so. Electric power generation equipment as well as electric power storage requires mining, processing and use of minerals and chemicals that will leave legacy environmental contamination and severe impacts to long term human health and well-being. Modern society operates because of reliable electric power; in inclement weather or when wind does not blow and during periods of decreased solar radiation (at night). That requires an alternate power generation strategy that has not been fully proven like tidal generation. At this time, there are few remaining, if any, hydroelectric sites that can be exploited or further developed to provide the capacity to charge automobiles, heat and cool buildings, provide light and power for telecommunications. Unless there is a focused, rapid effort to add nuclear power infrastructure in the form of new nuclear generation plants, this will be impossible to achieve. Hydrocarbon fuels are energy dense and practically portable; providing energy for tasks that cannot be accomplished without continuous input from a wired grid. Electric power can be utilized for transportation, but not to haul goods, power agricultural equipment (that requires raw horsepower to operate such as tillage equipment), etc. It also is not completely practical to rely on electric power to heat and cool buildings as the required infrastructure requires land use that will be incompatible with food production and carbon sequestration by plant growth. | ||
| Gorden,Schubert | Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel there is. It makes processes at home and industry many times more efficient (this state really should be reaping from the benefits of hydraulic fracturing instead of running from it). Natural gas is often used to fuel garbage trucks, busses, and other vehicles. It is even used to make certain synthetic motor oils. From cooking to heating to transportation to industrial processes requiring natural gas combustion - it is an available and clean resource. To expect anyone to use a less efficient and less readily available resource is wrong. It is not the enemy of a greener future. | ||
| Beth,Cade | Living all my life in rural wny. I can’t imagine electricity as our only option unless all power lines are going underground. Freq power outages are common in the winter and not having gas appliances to use when the powers off is ridiculous. And we certainly aren’t making all our electric from ridiculous windmills whose carbon footprint will never be erased by the electric they make . And exactly what is used to build these non gas vehicles with their toxic batteries and need to be plugged in . All Said the current agenda for nys is ridiculous | ||
| Janice`,Barton | 1. Cost to public to replace gas furnace, gas dryer, gas stove, gas water heater. 2. Manufacturers limitations to supply electric to the above 3. Time to transition #1 and #2 4. Limitations on electric supply- cars alone with absorb supply 5. To date solar has not proved cost effective 6. The number of solar panels or wind to supply energy to MILLIONS of people in NY State is not realistic 7. Cost for geothermal heating 8. Electric cars so far has limited range. Each battery goes about 20 miles. Have to have six in trunk. Even with different configuration, too limiting to date. 9. Who can afford a new car- $20 to $50,000 now? Why more and more people are leasing. 10. What about those who can not afford a lease or a new car? 11. The average age of a car on the road in the U.S. is 12.2 years. Given that no gasoline auto sales by 2035. Every one would have to get an electric car next year. 12. Cost of electric given demand. Prices would go up-- more demand than supply. | ||
| Deepta,Gupta | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | I am a rising sophomore at MIT from Westchester County, NY, with an EECS major and Energy Studies minor. I am writing to support the inclusion of nuclear energy in New York's zero emissions future, with the caveat that nuclear plants must offset the emissions resulting from energy-intensive processes of extracting, processing, and transporting nuclear fuel. In addition, they must use certified nuclear fuel that has been extracted without harming indigenous communities, land, flora, and fauna. I support nuclear energy because it has the lowest land use and material use per unit of electricity generated compared to any other energy source. Nuclear power plants produce an order or magnitude more electricity per unit land compared to renewables like solar and wind. Of course, wind and solar energy have a critical decarbonization role to play. However, beyond the logistical limits to the deployment of wind and solar, there are technical challenges that rise exponentially as their share of generation increases. Firm sources like nuclear [1] have a critical role in a reliable and cost-effective 100% carbon-free electric grid. Additionally, using more land area for electricity generation than necessary harms the goal of conservation of forest & wildlife land, as well as takes away potential carbon sinks to mitigate GHG emissions already in the atmosphere. In addition to helping realize effective and affordable decarbonization, protecting the existing and deploying new nuclear generation capacity would also help realize the Just Transition Working Group’s Principles. Communities are built around stable employment and tax revenues from hosting nuclear power plants. Of all U.S. energy industries, nuclear has the highest level of unionization and highest pay. These multi-generational, well-paying jobs enable vibrant, healthy, and prosperous communities. [1] https://www.cleanegroup.org/webinar/decarbonizing-electricity-the-critical-role-of-firm-low-carbon-resources/ | |
| Janice,Barton | 1. Cost to public to replace gas furnace, gas dryer, gas stove, gas water heater. 2. Manufacturers limitations to supply electric to the above 3. Time to transition #1 and #2 4. Limitations on electric supply- cars alone with absorb supply 5. To date solar has not proved cost effective 6. The number of solar panels or wind to supply energy to MILLIONS of people in NY State is not realistic 7. Cost for geothermal heating 8. Electric cars so far has limited range. Each battery goes about 20 miles. Have to have six in trunk. Even with different configuration, too limiting to date. 9. Who can afford a new car- $20 to $50,000 now? Why more and more people are leasing. 10. What about those who can not afford a lease or a new car? 11. The average age of a car on the road in the U.S. is 12.2 years. Given that no gasoline auto sales by 2035. Every one would have to get an electric car next year. 12. Cost of electric given demand. Prices would go up-- more demand than supply. | ||
| Claire,Leaf | The time has come to address nonessential helicopter traffic-- a niche industry that always manages to be "overlooked" in every discussion of climate, transportation, pollution, etc. The negative impacts of helicopter traffic are well documented, starting almost 25 years ago (NRDC Report). It's not as if they're in dispute-- it's that the industry thinks that because it's a way for people to make money, and it's convenient for rich commuters, or if it's a tourist attraction then it should be untouchable. Please don't fall for these shibboleths. Good government + capitalism means that there are winners and losers all the time. So far, New Yorkers have been the losers. It's time for New York to stand up for us. Thank you. | ||
| Christina,Potempa | [email protected] | I am not in favor of this plan. It is way too aggressive. We are not ready for such a thing. If it goes into effect my family will leave the State. | |
| Mike,Schiffer | This agenda is Flawed, Deceitful and Criminal. Look at the situation our government has created in just the past 18 months - energy prices have doubled, inflation is out of control, national security is threatened by the administration's acts of supposed Green Energy Initiatives, and all are caused by the nonsense of supposed Climate Change. The earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time - have you ever heard of the Ice Age? None of the actions you are proposing will negate the inevitable climate changes caused by forces far more powerful than anything caused by man. The scientists that you refer to backing your agenda are all funded by our government and are threatened by loss of that funding if they do not back your Climate Change Policies. Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think? Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer's book in a brief summary: The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. | ||
| Dana,Ivey | Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." This is a source of terrible pollution for those who live under the flight paths of helicopters. Helicopters create a lot of disturbance in the lives of Manhattan residents. There is constant loud noise from helicopters. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. The heliports in Manhattan were a terrible idea. They have created lots of pollution and noise. The heliports in Manhattan should be closed. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. Helicopters should not be allowed to fly over Manhattan or other residential communities. | ||
| Christopher,Minges | 1) Who is paying for all of this? (I already know that answer, but it would be interesting to have the Governor actually address this.) 2) How does the Governor plan to provide the electricity required for all of this without using any fossil fuels, preferably without the black/brownouts that places like California are already experiencing. 3) How does the Governor plan to force people to install geothermal and/or solar? What will the penalties be if you don’t? 4) How does the Governor plan to force people to buy a non-electric vehicle? What will the penalties be if you don’t? I am failing to understand why an "all of the above" approach to energy isn't being used. The current approach of pursing this new green deal garbage is clearly not working, and is quite simply punitive to the citizens of New York, without any tangible benefit. I will not vote for anyone that supports this plan. | ||
| michelle,marozik | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. | ||
| Daniel,Bryce | No One should have the right to tell you how to heat your home. In colder climates heat = survival, and one or more options should be available in case one system fails. | ||
| Matthew,Rigerman | The plan as outlined to remove the ability to heat a home, cook with, or dry clothes with Natural Gas is an drastic change to force upon New York State citizens. Natural Gas is an affordable, clean energy source that is very efficient for these applications. NY State is overreaching by eliminating this viable energy source for residential usage. I do not support the requirements in this initiative that eliminate our ability as citizens to the use of natural gas. | ||
| Reese,Ethalter | This is not the time to push this agenda. It is not imperative. It is not urgent. You are rushing to meet objectives, why? At what cost? Have you considered that 240+ people died in Texas last year because they disabled fossil and move to clean fuels. I’m doing so failed to generate reliable power to provide life saving resources. That was Texas! We are NEW YORK. Solar production is coming at an even more significant cost. Are you providing land leases for projects solely in Brown fields? Or are you salting clean earth with this clean energy? Where are we sourcing these components from to manufacture solar panels? And at what cost? I’ve researched these components, and the lengths southeast Asians are going to to get them for YOU. Death. And even more salting of the earth, for clean? We have thousands of years of fossil fuels, which are cheap and safe. Improve the natural gas generation plants to produce lower emissions. Yes, that is possible, and YOU know it. New Yorkers are bleeding out hard earned money in an already busted economy. You’re breaking us even more. HALT. Let’s take our time here and transition safely and seamlessly. This is wreck less. | ||
| David,Taylor | As a Lifetime New York resident, this is just one more reason to move out of state. What a bunch of nonsense. There IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Natural Gas is a clean burning, economical, efficient fuel. You are going to drive our energy costs through the roof chasing your green fantasy. Please stop the madness. | ||
| Nancy,Selig | Enough is enough! We who are on fixed incomes cannot afford an electric car are you going to give us new cars and solar panels - are you going to come and cut down trees and pay for them to be put on our house! It is too late to do anything about climate change!!!!!!! We will not ever get away from Oil and gasoline and natural gas!!!! I read this will cost the resident $20,000.00 to convert over to a heat pump!!!! I don't have that kind of money and a lot of others don't either. We all have to eat, go to doctor appointments once we become senior citizens and live on a fixed income! I say no to this whole thing! Stop taking our rights away from us. This country and this State of New York is becoming more like a communist society by the day! Just stop this!!!!! | ||
| Dee,Budd | You are CRAZY | ||
| Art,Carella | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: 1. The helicopter flyway to points east of NYC runs above the Astoria (AKA Asthma Alley) neighborhood which is situated in an Environmental Justice Area. 2. Banning non-essential helicopter flights in NYC would be a major step towards improving air quality. 3. In addition, the noise level and vibrations emitted by low-altitude flights also pose a significant quality of life issue for the residents living directly in the flight path. | ||
| Earl,Adams | Storybook Veterinary Hospital | We do not have the infrastructure to supply all the electricity that would be needed under this new plan. Natural gas burns clean without a large amount of emissions. Wood burning is a natural way to heat and should not be outlawed in the future. Electricity can be a very expensive heating option and may not be easily affordable for some citizens and businesses of New York State. | |
| David ,Mccargo | This is total insanity, it will drive the average New Yorker into poverty. You can heat your house now with electric, no one does because it costs to much. | ||
| Greg,Waszak | Banning the use a natural gas which is a super clean burning and efficient fuel is a terrible idea. Our infrastructure isn't where it needs to be to meet the demand of everything electric. Sure, we are blessed to have hydroelectric from Niagara falls right here BUT as the demand for electricity rises, the burden on our exsisting power grid will not be sustainable. Eventually we will not be able to meet the demand for electric and we DO NOT want nuclear power facility anywhere near us. Coal provides the majority of power still around the world and that is a much dirtier option for producing electric than simply burning clean natural gas for heating, air conditioning etc... | ||
| Caitlin,Curnyn | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Gabriel,Johnson | When is enough enough? I’m tired of having NY think it knows beta for everyone. This is the reason people are leaving in droves Not everyone is into electric cars, electric heat and having this stuff shoved on us with the double standard of do what we say not what we do. I enjoy my gas heat. Cooking with my gas stove and driving the car if MY choice. Please help stop the government from taking my choices away. I’m not a socialist. I do t need the government to tell me what kind of car I need to drive and how to heat my home and how to cook | ||
| Dan,Woodruff | Yes yes yes! We need everything in this plan and more, and we need it fast. Without doing all this stuff right away we as humanity have no hope of surviving the next couple hundred years. Please think of all your grand kids and give them a healthy and clean future rather than death. | ||
| karen,appleby | This is so ridiculous as natural gas is a cleaner energy than electric. How do you expect people to be able to pay the higher prices of electric for all gas appliances?? How do you expect people to be able to afford to buy all new electric appliances?? How do you expect people to be able to afford to buy an electric car?? How do you plan to dispose of all the electric car batteries that are loaded with toxic chemicals?? How do you plan to supply all the additional electricity needed for all of this new electric use?? Many electric plants are run by natural gas when they were previously converted from coal so how do you think you will be able to supply all this new electricity?? Apparently no one has thought through any of this....aren't there any smart politicians anymore?? I will not vote for a democrat ever again!!!!!!!!! Our country is in dire straits right now and you want to make things even worse?!?! | ||
| Harold,Wolcott | All of this is too progressive and aggressive !!!! We are a very long way from having a stable/robust power grid !!! As it is the push on electric vehicles is going to overload what we have in place. We still get warnings on our local news in the middle of 90 degree weather to please shut off your AC from 4pm-7pm to help conserve power........hello, that is peak time because everyone is home from work and eating dinner with their families !!!!!!! I am onboard with "green energy" supplementing our grid but 100% not on board with trying to force it in as a replacement !!!!! Sincerely, Harold Wolcott | ||
| Joseph,Pici | I feel as though the target dates for these transitions do not in any way match our ability to match the increased demand for capacity and infrastructure to accommodate. What these zealots want is going to put the cart before the horse as our infrastructure can’t match the transition dates. I do believe no one really cares and is pushing this just to look like something, even if wrong, is being done. | ||
| Michael ,Maddex | Your policies are to aggressive. You need do much more work on electrical infrastructure, before you implement these policies. We'll be in the same position Europe is in now. Mike | ||
| Michael ,Dombrowski | Eliminating natural gas option for buildings is going to increase costs for state residents and increase costs for operating buildings as well as increase costs on commercial structures. Natural gas appliances and heating plants are efficient and cost effective. The proposed changes will kill development and further drive business and people out of the state. | ||
| Don,Manchester | Eliminating use of natural gas maybe a good idea if New York is going to pay for residents to go to wind or solar power or the cost come way down. Senior residents would a hard time covering the cost. | ||
| Sharon,Steck | To Whom It May Concern, I am not for this plan. This does not help anyone and there is not enough information as to how this will affect all of us. Our electric bills will go up and too much electricity used at one time will slow down our electricity and cause major electrical shortages! It's apparent that no one has addressed these issues! Thank you, Sharon Steck | ||
| Adam,Barrett | This plan is unrealistic and punished the middle class. Why is it Unrealistic? - I’m an EPA 608 certified HVAC technician and I am certain there are not enough skilled workers to electrify the state. - NYSEG grid cannot handle the dramatic load increase that will come from heat pumps in the winter. - Houses built prior to 1990 do not have adequate insulation to feel “cozy” in the dead of winter. - Air source Heat pump manufacturers have different ratings for comfortable heat setting. Most aim to achieve 70° indoors. How many elderly people do you know that are satisfied with 70° indoor air temp in February? These heat pumps will not satisfy New Yorkers in the winter! -electricity rates are already going up, people in the middle class will not be able to afford their electric bill. - NG burning furnaces are 98* efficient, so efficient that they require drain lines to remove the moisture from the exhaust air! - they generate “hot” heat, run with modulating motor speeds, and don’t shutdown at 5-10° outdoor temperature. If you really want to combat climate change: 1. Stop shutting down nuclear power. 2. Provide rebates for high efficient NG or LG furnaces. 3. Provide tangible rebates that encourage home insulation improvements. Spray foam homes are the key to reducing carbon emissions...they keep the heat in the home! | ||
| Steven,Anderson | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan. | ||
| Veronica,Gray | Subjecting the whole state to these regulations is an overreach on behalf of the government. The costs would far outweigh any possible benefits. I hope that our elected officials will act responsibly and under realistic parameters while keeping the common man in mind. | ||
| Larry,Johnson | This plan is totally at odds with everything our United States was founded on and can only further ruin our economy. While I won't be around long enough for this egregious folley to fully flower, this will be a disaster for my children and their children to suffer through. Wake up, this is fascism/communism at its worst. | ||
| Sandra,Meier | Environmental Energy Alliance of New York | ||
| Tracy Kennedy,Flynn | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." Even non-lead fueled helicopters are a sig | ||
| Patrick,Young | I am totally against the plan to ban natural gas appliances etc. Our politicians have grand ideas without any plan to actually makes things work. Our electric grid is already over burdened. How is it going to take on the burden brought on by the switchover from fossil fuels?? I can’t even begin to tell you what a lack of faith I have in NYS leadership. This just once again proves my point. | ||
| Tina,Csendom | I oppose everything in this proposal It will destroy New York and it will further drive out families that have worked their whole lives here I will vote and do everything in my power to defeat this legislation | ||
| James ,Scotland | Absolutely ridiculous!!! We have an abundance of natural gas l don’t think electricity would ever be able fulfill our needs!!!! Penny wise and dollar foolish!!!! | ||
| stephen,WELK | This plan should be voted upon by legislators BEFORE any part of it is put in motion. | ||
| Nancy,Benz | Will we see a better system of public transportation in upstate NY so as not to need cars? There should be better access to sensor systems that automatically turn off lights when there is no movement in the room. In Madrid, even the escalator in the train station shuts off when no movement is detected by people approaching the escalator. The same sensor systems can be used in schools and public bathrooms in all types of buildings. Thanks for listening, Nancy Benz | ||
| Andrew,Murphy | Ibew Local Union #3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Andrew Murphy and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Nanuet, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Andrew Murphy | |
| Chris,Blocher | I’m not going to read through this entire thing, but your 2024 deadline for cutting gas lines to new and existing construction is concerning. I’m particularly concerned about the seeming lack of backup power. Natural gas powered generators are important, as electric power outages are becoming more common. News tells us the electric power grid is aging. Increased usage of an old system also seems illogical. The focus seems backward. First improve access to alternative energy sources…improve infrastructure to deliver those sources…make it reliable and cheaper than gas…then set restrictions to drive adoption. If these concerns are addressed somewhere in this lengthy doc, disregard these concerns, else happy to chat. | ||
| Alicia,ODonnell | Pushing our energy future to be only one type of source for the majority of our usage is unwise. Diversifying is imperative! | ||
| Sandra,Meier | Environmental Energy Alliance of New York | ||
| Jack,Brouwer | National Fuel Cell Research Center | To the Climate Action Council and NYSERDA: Please accept these comments in the attachment on behalf of the National Fuel Cel l Research Center in response to the January 2022 request from the New York Climate Action Council for comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. Respectfully Submitted, Jack Brouwer | has attachment |
| Melissa ,Maderer | New Yorkers across the state know this plan will not work. We do not and will not support it, nor do we support politicians that believe in this ridiculous and failed plan. | ||
| David,Murphy | Ibew Local union #3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is David Murphy and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Nanuet, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, David Murphy | |
| Jim,Serafin | NY residents want to retain our choice in fuels to power our homes and businesses. So many residents heat their homes with low cost and emission natural gas which also heats our homes in times of grid failure. Let the markets decide the direction NY goes. I object to this radical green push without considering NY residents. There is too much power in too few hands. | ||
| Christina,Kiel | Eliminating the use of natural gas, propane and heating oil will substantially increase the state’s demand for electricity and prove costly for consumers and businesses. This is not logical with the current electric grid. This will lead to substantial power outages nationwide. | ||
| Raffaella,Damore | This plan is suicidal. Please vote, NO | ||
| Nina,Kramer | Nina Kramer Landscape Architecture | I respectfully suggest and request that Landscape Architects be added to the list of professionals in the Climate Action Plan. Landscape Architects have always worked to address environmental issues and they will be key players in beginning to remediate or solve climate issues in the realm of public space. They have a unique combination of skills that include environmental and plant factors as well as expertise with design and the built environment that is exposed to the elements. Please add them to the list of architects and engineers which you have already included. They will be a necessary part of any climate planning and work. Thank you, Nina Kramer, Principal Nina Kramer Landscape Architecture | |
| Nate,Levesque | I am fully in favor of this plan. It's not 100% perfect but electrification and addressing climate change is critical. | ||
| John,Dellaportas | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." Even non-lead fueled helicopters are a sig | ||
| Alan ,McNamara | I absolutely do not support a complete shift away from gas utilities and vehicles. Supporting people's choice to voluntarily make the switch to an electric lifestyle is fine, but it is a massive breach of freedom to eliminate gas from the available market. Secondly, the power grid will not support this. What's going to happen to people if they lose power and have an electric vehicle, all electric appliances in their house? A complete forced shift to an electric lifestyle is wildly intrusive into people's ability to freely live their life. Ny state already screws people over enough on the amount of ridiculous restrictions we have to deal with. I recommend making it easy for people to switch to electric stuff on their own but do not completely ban gas vehicles or gas appliances. | ||
| Shelah,Leader | As a public health expert and resident of Manhattan, I urge NYCAC to include in the draft scope of work relating to the Green New Deal legislation of 2019, elimination of the nn-essential helicopters that fly incessantly over our city, including parks, monuments, and recreation areas as well as residential and office buildings. In addition to the noise they create, tourist and commuter helicopters add to the pollution of our environment. They are gas guzzlers, carbon dioxide emitters, and yield no benefit to the community they harm. Rather, they pose a crash and terrorist threat and degrade our air and add stress which has been scientifically link to illness. Thank you. | ||
| Robert ,Buresch | This has to be one of the most ill-conceived, ludicrous plans I have seen in a long time, clearly devised by educated nincompoops living in a world of pixies and mushrooms. So we are all supposed to switch over from gasoline and natural gas or LP to electricity basically within ten years. Brilliant. Exactly where is all this electricity going to come from? I see plans for solar arrays and wind farms. If you covered the state with solar panels and windmills, you would not meet the resulting demand. And where are we supposed to grow food? Or do we just get that from China? What happens when the power goes out and lines go down (and they will, I assure you)? Living in a rural area, our electricity goes down quite often, and sometimes for a few days on end. We rely on a LP gas fireplace for heat in the winter when our electricity goes down. And I run my gasoline powered standby generator during prolonged power outages. You are going to outlaw natural gas and gasoline? I will not vote one cent for this idiotic plan. News flash: electric cars have been around for quite a while, and there is still no reliable infrastructure for their use. What makes you fools think there will be one in ten years? I implore you to pump the brakes and go back to the drawing board on this preposterous plan in its entirety. | ||
| Joseph,Kwilos | Kwilos Farms | My biggest concern is the current grid cannot handle the load on some days when demand is high. We have a small farm that raise beef cattle to sell for meat, both retail cuts and bulk orders. If we have to put more strain on the grid and encounter more power outages, who will pay for my meat that goes bad? I also noticed in my town alone a new solar field being installed. The so called "green energy" clear cut 10 acres of forest to install these panels. Can a solar panel remove carbon dioxide from the air? Do they support wildlife habitat? We also have encountered stress with solar companies putting huge dollars up to rent land that we currently farm. How is a farm supposed to compete with government subsidized companies for land rent? We also are not making anymore land, so why take land out of agriculture to make energy? I would love to talk with someone in politics to hear answers or help fight against these new policies being put in place. Natural gas is still the cheapest and safest heat source we have. | |
| Jeanne,Karnath | The infrastructure in this country cannot support all electric energy. The grids already break down when the demand is high. I would think it’d be much easier to attack as well, leaving us all in danger. To give citizens no gas option is extremely limiting. This country needs to be energy independent and not relying on the Middle East and Russia. Explore options, wind, solar, whatever.. but don’t give the electric companies the monopoly, which will drive up prices even more. | ||
| Amy,Alexander | The timeline for this plan is too short. Realistically, it needs to be a more gradual transition. That said, currently a large percentage of electricity in New York comes from coal fired plants. Again, it will take time to transition to better electricity generation. When storms come through, the electricity often goes out, but gas does not. To rework the infrastructure to protect the electrical lines again will take time. Gradual transition is key. Extend the time period after consulting with appropriate experts and, in the meantime, why not work on being more efficient with natural gas usage? | ||
| Lee,Talley | I believe this Climate plan will cause irreparable harm to the residents and businesses of the state of New York and is an unsustainable initiative that will overwhelm the electric grid. The people who will be hardest hit are low and middle income families who rely on natural gas for heating and cooking as well as transportation to and from employment and to purchase necessities. I cannot stress enough my disapproval for this plan and recommend it be disregarded and abandoned. | ||
| Emma,Abbott | Serious question- do republicans think this s--- is going away? If we don’t do this now- we will pay for it times 200 later. DO IT. FULL SUPPORT | ||
| Robert,Stoklosa | |||
| Timothy,Zazynski | If this passes, NYS better be buying me new appliances and heating equipment to replace my current ones that I just had installed in my brand new home. These rich politicians don’t give a crap about normal day people. Obviously they don’t understand that when you print and hand out free money, then there is inflation to make the middle class poorer. How are we expected to afford all of this? There will be huge price increases. I mean, with the extremely big taxes paid to live here, NY should be able to pay for every household to upgrade. | ||
| Dan,Proctor | I think the state would be over reaching their authority to demand New Yorkers meet these standards. I also think the cost to the individual could be very high if the house that they living already has all gas appliances. The cost of electric vehicles both in dollars and to the environment would be detrimental to individual New Yorkers. Stop telling us how to spend our hard earned money! | ||
| Christina,Velez-Uebelhoer | I do not want anything to do with climate change. It is a BS narrative by the "elites". The Earth is getting cooler when she seasons change so does the weather it gets warm it gets hot it gets cold it doesn't matter. Until you people lead by example by not having Jets cars that run in gasoline no natural gas to cook your food and heat your homes, this government is absolutely tyrannical. All you people want to do is control us and make us weak and not be able to go anywhere such as work and to depend on our government. That is not how it works. I should have a choice along with many others with all the options on the table of having a gas guzzling car or if they want to have an electric car that ruins the environment in other countries. Windmills solar panels are not biodegradable and they are made by coal. We are not stupid people you are. This government is absolutely disgusting and evil. If this happens in New York I am leaving my children will be leaving and our friends will be leaving and then you have no one to rule over. The green New deal is a joke you cannot get rid of carbon dioxide. Plants depend on it it is a natural emission from animals and humans. Stop working against us it is not the government's job to be working against its own constituents. I hope by 2023 or 2022 that you people will be gone hopefully by military tribunals. You have violated your oats to the Constitution for life liberty and happiness and to abide by the constitution. You work for us and if you don't like how things are going and you're going to violate the constitution then step down you are not needed. There are too many people in this government that are looking for just power and money. Leave us alone let us live and get out of my life just protect us from terrorists and maintain our infrastructure. Very simple but yet you are not doing your jobs. | ||
| Adrienne,Meisels | Please see attached letter. Please stop the continual helicopter traffic over NYC and Central Park. It is creating pollution (particula tes as well as noise) for the citizens. Thank you. | has attachment | |
| Dan,Quintana | So Mr Gallivan, you send out this email message with documentation that would take weeks to read and understand two day before the end of the comment period ends. Seems to me a bit suspicious that politicians on both sides of the issue and party want to sell us a bill of goods. Much like the guy selling crap on TV screaming about a great sale that won’t last. Or, Nancy Pelosi’s “You have to pass our plan before you can see it” I’m paraphrasing of course. So where is all this magic energy going to come from in such a short period of time. Honestly, I sure none of you elected officials know, but I’m sure your are all invested substantially in Electric cars and windmills that will lead to human catastrophe waiting to happen. Just one major Buffalo blizzard away from fulfilling the left plan to destroy lives while you all get rich experimenting with magical energy. | ||
| Thomas ,KUNTZ | NYS resident’s already pay too much in taxes and services. How in GODS name do you think you’ll replace an alternative for natural gas!! Your building plans have never even been done on any scale let alone broad coverage for new homes and buildings. You, you need your head examined!!! | ||
| Richard,Savage | Your proposals, all of them, are not what we in New York want or need.9 We do not have the infrastructure to go all electric, and of course . I do not want to decarbonize I want ALL fuels used, including natural gas, nuclear, oil, and coal. I also want fracking permitted. Electricity is produced by mainly fossil fuels. Please look beyond the end of your nose. Your energy plan will ruin people’s lives and lead to a reduced standard of living and huge price increases. I want all of the people who think electric cars and pickups are the answer to get in one and drive to a family member’s home 400 miles away. You will have to sit and charge for an hour at 300 miles or less. If you buy a pickup .and pull a small camper or boat you won’t make 200 miles.?we live in America not Europe where countries are in close proximity to each other. | ||
| Ellen,Peters | The proposals for discontinuing use of natural gas for home heating, cooking and hot water heaters is cost prohibitive. Electric is much more expensive. Our current electric grid cannot support the additional strain on the system. Natural gas is a clean energy source. | ||
| Donald ,Eichenauer | The enactment of this plan will make New York State a place where it will be financially impossible for corporations to operate and citizens to afford to live. Although, perhaps a nice hope, the exodus from NY will continue and there will be no way for the state to rebound. Please reconsider and develop a plan that is practical. | ||
| Josh,Diamant | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." Even non-lead fueled helicopters are a sig | ||
| Sherrill,Olivas | First, I only looked at the summary. My rep only sent this to me today 6/29 saying public comment by 7/1. I didn't have enough time to fully read a 341 report. I do support moving away from fossil fuels, we are now in a dire situation with climate change and have no time to lose, yet the sectors in this report don't mention the biggest driver of greenhouse gas emissions. That is animal agriculture. Not sure how much this applies to NYS but up to 51% of emissions come from animal agriculture. Eliminating animal agriculture would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 87% (https://www.mcdougallfoundation.org/diet-climate/). Unless our diets are addressed, no climate plan is complete. If everyone switched to plant-based diets the demand for animal products would drop (not to mention significant savings in healthcare from a healthier population). Second, since we are talking about electrifying NYS, the first step is to shore up the grid. In March 2017 I was without power for 6 days! It was very traumatizing but affected the majority of Monroe County so all the hotels were full. I was lucky in that I still had hot water and could use my gas cooktop. Before you eliminate gas, you need to bury the electric lines so that they are safe from the wind storms that are caused by climate change. Just this year, my mother was without power in Broome County for 3 days due to a wind storm. Otherwise, I'm all for electrifying the state and reducing fossil fuel usage. | ||
| Jason,Weiss | Work on stopping the NY Governor from destroying our state. Climate change is not a priority to common sense people. Our state is a mess thanks to our politicians who appear to have no common sense or concern for the residents of NYS. | ||
| Gene,Polito | • Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. | ||
| JENNIFER,LEUZZI | Mill Creek Optical | Please reconsider the consequences that these actions will impose on the middle and lower class in our state. I am a business owner and drive a pick-up truck. I also drive a scooter all summer that costs $5 to run for the whole summer. I cannot fathom the thought process that thinks this plan is logical in the time frame provided. And please tell me the plan for disposal of the lithium batteries that will be piled high from electric cars, that will NEVER biodegrade. How about we plant a million new trees to combat air pollution? How about we research a safe way to harness the billions of years of natural gas that are below our feet! Ugh-this plan infuriates me and will certainly be on my mind and my entire families mind when we vote. | |
| Mark ,Crawford | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S. | ||
| Jeff,Nawotka | I have just recently spent $10K to install a natural gas backup generator due to the many power outages in our area. I am tired of clearing out spoiled food and cleaning/repairing a finished basement. Natural gas has always been a more reliable and better valued utility. The inability to replace my existing natural gas furnace, hot water tanks, oven, range and grill with natural gas appliances would require an upgrade of my home's electric service which I would not be able to afford. Again tying into an overtaxed (and insufficient) electrical grid. As for replacement of the family vehicles, who except the elite, can afford an electric vehicle? Again, how can you even charge it without upgrading your home electrical service? Off of the existing power grid? That's a joke! It can't even handle the current loads! | ||
| Jeffrey,Schenck | Any politician that votes for this. Is undeserving of representing the people. | ||
| Michelle,Zemla | I do not agree with the councils draft and do not want any of these initiatives to become law. Electric car are not affordable and they are not practical commuting from rural areas to work. Eliminating natural gas is not a good idea. | ||
| Myron ,Tychowskyj | The plan that the democrats have proposed are nothing but nonsense. This country has more natural gas and oil than we know what to do with. If we go so called all electric how are we going to heat and cool our homes and even charge all the electric vehicles. Let’s be sensible and use the so called fossil fuels we have. I’m sure the technology is there or will be there to make them clean burning fuels. | ||
| Brian ,Smith | I have had it with the democrats trying to destroy everything about America. This country is no where near going full time green. Renewable energy is great as a supplemental energy, but we're decades from it being our main source. Everything that runs on fossil fuels is cleaner than it's ever been. All I see when I travel is giant solar farms absorbing grass land. Piles of useless wind mill arms, which from my understanding can't be recycled so they get buried. Great for the environment. What do we do with the solar panels from these solar farms when they are no longer useable?, bury them? What about these large batteries when they are no longer useable? Have we figured out where those are going to go. Maybe the democrats that hate America so much should move to China or India and fix their pollution issues, instead of constantly trying to ruin America. NY state is just going to keep losing good people and businesses because of poor democratic leadership. I for one am getting close unless something changes in this state. I guess I'm finished because what I or anyone else says probably really doesn't matter. | ||
| Brenda,Hanson | New York State's climate leadership is not leadership at all. Instead, the plan to force citizens of NYS into abandoning fossil fuels and depending on unreliable, intermittent, and unaffordable renewable energy sources is a destructive plan that hurts people. The plan is detrimental to human flourishing and to human freedom. New York State government should back off and respect the citizens of this State. People should have liberty to decide whether they want to drive a gasoline car or an electric car. They should not be forced to make this decision. School districts and the communities they serve should have the right to determine if they will use gasoline or electric school buses. Such a decision should not be forced upon them. If a person wants to install a gas oven or gas furnace in their home or business, they should not be prohibited from doing so by the government. A government that forces these decisions upon the citizenry is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. In addition, the Climate Action Council is a powerful body composed of UNELECTED individuals. These members will have power that affects the day-to-day lives of the citizens of this State. This way of doing business is inherently anti-American. | ||
| Julia,Geerkin | I have a HUGE concerns about eliminating gas appliances. The electric grid needs upgrading it can’t handle all the use. Also how do we know these new electric works in a super cold climates? Environmentalist mean well but look at plastic recycling after 30 years there is talk this is an epic fail. The cost of these heater run $20,000 how can the average citizen afford this? Small changes help you don’t need to just check boxes and ruin NYS because of fear | ||
| Timm,Slade | None | I hope there will be enough electricity to power every single thing that this proposal encompasses. What will happen with the power outage? Why do we have such a short comment.? Is anyone going to read these comments prior to July 1, 2022 I certainly hope that New York State has the population in the future that will be electrified. | |
| Sheryl,Gold | member, Say No to KHTO and Stop the Chop NY/NJ | I urge NYCAC to include the harmful environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual non essential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic emissions on all those below their flight paths, including me and my neighbors on the East End of Long Island, or near the heliports and airports, such as the East Hampton Town Airport. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River. In addition, tens of thousands of non essential polluting "commuter" flights transport the 1% who will avoid driving at all costs (paying to Blade over $1,000 per one way flight) to their homes in the Hamptons. Some helicopters still burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | |
| Anna,Polanski | Please do not get rid of a natural gas we are not yet equipped to deal with the alternatives this would be a very costly this would be a very costly transition | ||
| Gregory,Hammell | Achieving a clean earth is very important, but is the power grid capable of being upgraded to handle the new power loads that will be demanded of it, or will we experience rolling black outs as in California. And what of possible future terrorist attacks, putting all our energy needs in one source can be disastrous, especially in New York's cold winters. Our energy sources should be diverse not relying on an antiquated power grid. | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Timothy,Yonker | After all of these changes take place to convert everything to electric, what is the back up plan when cyber attacks on this country wipe out the electrical grid systems? | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | ||
| Pamela,Nowak | I am writing to state my opposition to the NYS Draft Scoping Plan that seeks to ban all other forms of viable energy in favor of electric power only. This amounts to yet another state mandate that I and many, many other New Yorkers do not want. We should have a choice in what we use for our energy needs and not have this shoved down our throats. Our government is supposed to be by the people & for the people, not a dictatorship. This entire Draft Scoping Plan needs to be made public in its entirety, with all costs included. The hard working, intelligent & conscientious citizens of NYS are well able to make choices that are right for them. I include myself in this group. | ||
| Anshul,Gupta | |||
| James,Kemnitz | I am overall very impressed with the presentation and mitigation strategies. As a homeowner in a rural county, I do support many of the propositions contained therein, but am concerned about transition costs. I therefore request tax credits be considered for the following areas: - Upgrading electric panel. My home boiler system can be swapped to electricity with relative ease, but it eats up amps and space on my electric panel, which in turn reduces what’s available to my home and barn. - Upgrading fossil fuel systems to electric systems, to include purchasing equipment and installation - working a way to allow for small amounts of natural gas use for grills and indoor gas stoves. Perhaps tax penalties for usage over x amount per year Thank you and great work on the presentation and mitigation strategies! | ||
| Jason Odell,Williams | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, and the fact that the heliports are located in densely populated areas! To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing and commuter flights is an injustice to all New Yorkers. | ||
| joshua,najjar | Everyt ime there is a demonstration in Washington Square Park there are helicopters hovering over my building for hours !! I can not work, eat, listen to music, watch TV, or do anything !!!! Why is this necessary !! !! Why is it SO important to destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people to have a helicopter in the air ?? What can a helicopter do - that forces on the ground that are much closer to the action cannot do ?!! PLEASE STOP THE HELICOPTERS !! Please !!! It is totally unnecessary and destroying the lives of tens of thousands of people !! Thank you !! | ||
| Lisa,Neff | I do not approve! This plan is impractical, a denial of the realities surrounding alternative fuels and an unconstitutional taking of liberty and property! Cease and desist or get voted out, "Gov. Hochul"! | ||
| Thomas,Thompson | Stop the assault on fossil fuels...this country runs on oil...wake up... | ||
| Michele,Bella | You cannot do this! I want a choice! All this green energy is not green. Electric batteries have waste a lot of waste. There will be to much strain on the grid all over the states. There is also waste making electricity, so the more electricity the more waste. Climate change doesn’t work if the the whole world isn’t behind it! We need to look at other forms of energy that may work before this is pushed down our throats. Also, the ideas in green energy does not work the same in different areas of this country from the coldest cold to the hottest hot. We still have times where areas are told not to used water because levels are low or in NYC when they tell people to conserve energy and turn off lights and air conditioners in the heat of summer. STOP AND LOOK AT EVERY ANGLE…. | ||
| Karen,Riley | While your ideas are commendable, I have serious reservations about the proposal. 1st- the mining of resources to make the batteries for electric vehicles is unbelievably harmful to the environment. 2nd- I wonder if the electric grid has the capacity for demand created by people charging cars. 3rd- you are simply replacing the demand for gasoline with the demand for coal (for the electricity to charge the vehicles) is just as, if not more damaging to the environment. 3rd- this plan will drive up demand to a finite supply of electricity generation, thereby driving up the cost of electricity which many people would not be able to afford. 4th- many people in Livingston County can drive hundreds of miles/day for work which is untenable in today's vehicles. My 90 minute drive to work would become a 5 hour drive when have to try to find an almost nonexistent charging station and wait 3 hours for the vehicle to charge and then a 5 hour drive home. Really, people? 5th- most people in Livingston County cannot afford to install a charging line (or 2 or more for families with multiple vehicles) let alone purchase an electric vehicle. While a commendable effort, this bill is poorly conceived and down here it just feels like one more example of the urban majority making the rural poor poorer and making people move to the cities. Also, how to plan to accommodate farmers. They certainly don't have the time to sit around and wait for tractors to charge and can't afford multiple tractors to have sitting and charging while they drive another. | ||
| Dan,Lotito | Most of these efforts are ridiculous, unattainable, and unnecessary. If this ridiculousness continues, count me as another actual tax payer who will leave this cratering state. | ||
| Nick ,Powers | It is unrealistic and unreliable to be pushing the ban of Natural Gas. Natural Gas is the cleanest most efficient fossil fuel, and the systems it runs through are some of the most reliable as far as utilities go. Complete electrification will be putting the safety of the public in danger, especially in a climate like New York has. | ||
| Barb,Varnum | Our electric grid can not handle what we have going on right now. Add on electric cars (which are awful) and electric heat and electric everything and you have a disaster in the making. I understand the Dems in NY and elsewhere are not able to think for themselves but come on. Solar is not reliable btw. Solar field that they cut down trees to put in always has non working panels that can not easily be recycled (if at all) and uses toxic material. I feel like I am living through a twilight zone episode! One thing is for certain, Dems are making NY an awful place to live and the number of (legal) residents is going down. | ||
| Chad,Frazier | I am against the banning of any of use of fuel or oil. I am against being forced to by electric anything. Our energy grid couldn’t begin to support something like this. Stop the forcing electric anything upon us. I have no interest in it. Nor do I want it. | ||
| Rachel,Grzybek | The following statement says it all. Eliminating the use of natural gas, propane and heating oil will substantially increase the state’s demand for electricity and prove costly for consumers and businesses. We have a God given natural resource (natural gas) for heating and for the use of our vehicles. New York State's climate for solar/windmills is "questionable". Winters are cold and gray. "Question" How much oil is required to power a wind turbine? Each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil for lubrication, and this isn’t vegetable oil; this is PAO synthetic oil based on crude… It was 12,000 gallons. Once a year, that oil must be replenished. So why then are you considering this form of energy by eliminating "fossil fuel' as oil has to be used for these windmills to operate? Battery driven vehicles are not dependable as the cold drains the batteries. Residents of New York should have the freedom of choice on whether to heat their homes/ business with gas or electric and/or to drive a vehicle powered by gas or electric. The cost of building an all electric home or even changing over from gas to electric will be a costly measure passed on to the homeowner/consumer. If the current "status quo" remains many New York State Residents will just move to another State were they will have freedom of choice regarding the above. It would appear that more research need be done before enacting these measures and/or have the Residents of New York State have a voice by voting on these measures. | ||
| April,Krissell | I oppose this nonsense. Those that want to switch to all electric can do so. I like what I already use for fuel, etc. Making NY unaffordable, how many more people need to exit the state before government takes notice. I've seen in the town of Deposit the wind turbines, horrible! | ||
| Alyson,Pyc | Electric vehicle can not tow my 35' trailer! | ||
| Brian,Hoberman | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan because thousands of annual helicopter flights over Manhattan are polluting, noisy and dangerous. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. Helicopters benefit a select few and are not climate-friendly. | ||
| Dean ,Sherwood | I think it's exceedigly foolish of our state government to ban an efficient and cost effective form of energy, especially in the absence of adequate infrastructure to go all electric. While I can see advantages to weaning off gas this state is putting the cart before the horse. One initiative I would be in favor of is only allowing our elected representatives to travel by electric car, no taxpayer funded private flights to Puerto Rico for the Governor. I'm fed up with these rules for thee and not for me. | ||
| Joe,L | Do not pass this disgraceful law. | ||
| Elisa,Roaldi | This plan has not been thought out properly. Gas is still the cheapest fuel to heat our homes. Majority of people cannot afford a charging station in their home for vehicles. Our electric is turned off annually mid summer for 2 hrs to prevent transformers to cool down from AC overload. We have resources right here to utilize. Combined with solar power. Wealthy people should get rid of their leer jets! | ||
| Elizabeth,m West | No...no...no!! These ideas are eccentricities and unnecessary...on the side of DNC climate alarmists aka the squad and the reason for inflation, #attactonenergy... | ||
| Steven,Svec | This is a terrible idea. This will harm New Yorkers now and all future Generations. Not only is it tremendously harmful to our prosperity our freedom and our standard of living it is also an albatross around the necks of our children. This will drive people from the state myself included. To infringe on the rights of New Yorkers to travel to drive what they please to choose how they Heat their own homes is an unprecedented intrusion into the privacy and personal lives of every New Yorker. The state has no right to enforce any of this arbitrary micromanagement on the lives of New Yorkers. Worst of all other than satisfying the most ideologically driven amongst us it will do nothing to address the global issues of climate. This will crush our citizens under the weight of its costs and regulations while doing absolutely nothing positve for the world or this state. | ||
| Gary,Jennings | I love the idea of a new New York we need to transition to less destructive means of living. It will be a transition but we can do it no we must do it for our children and grandchildren!!!! | ||
| Judson,Marvin | All these proposals are absolutely absurd. The electric grid will never be able to handle all electric appliances in every home in 7-1/2 years. Where’s the money going to come from to upgrade the electric systems? More and more people will move out of NY because of delusional politicians. | ||
| Bridget,Tartick | Where are the results from the studies that show how amping up electric and electricity usage has a health benefit that outweights the radiation exposure risks? Percentage of negative health issues including cancer as a result of radiation exposure (i.e., emfs) is not seriously addressed in this draft. | ||
| David,Wells | I completely oppose this effort and this plan from start to finish. STOP THIS NONSENSE NOW !!!! | ||
| mark ,putnam | Leave our resources like they are-we do not need to change .Natural gas heating and gasoline cars should stay.WE CAN NOT AFFORD THESE UN NEEDED CHANGES! | ||
| Marshall,Smith | Professor Emeritus, Rochester Institut e of Technology | I am fully supportive of the intentions and goals of the plan. We have a lot of work ahead of us to achieve them. We must move forward and perhaps pay a bit more than what we are used to in order to accomplish progress. The time is NOW. | |
| James,Cottrell | Climate change is a natural thing. The earth has gone thru many changes starting back when man was not in control of anything. Who do you blame for the ice age and the mini-ice age of the 18th century? This current climate nonsense has only provided a means of making money for slick political people, | ||
| GREGORY,GRAVES | Anytime Coach Lines | I am writing concerned that the proposed changes that are coming to consumers is going to run itself off the rails of progress. Where in the world are we going to get the capability to charge vehicles of all shapes and sizes so that they can do the work that gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles are currently capable of handling. I was given word recently that a local power supply company is requiring 400 amp home service for anyone wanting to install a car charging station at their residence in NY State. The cost of upgrading is prohibitive. Electric use is going through the roof and so are the cost per KW hour and the associated supply service. Coal fired generation plants will need to be put out of service, right along with the fuel refineries for diesel and gasoline. With all the emissions that have been restricted on vehicles and of factories and refineries, the use of oil should not be a large factor, when you consider where the electric is coming from, and the associated costs that come with it. I own and operate a busing company. I never will buy an electric bus, as they do not hold a charge long enough to cover a day of work. How are our customers going to accept that we have to stop in the middle of the day because the bus needs a charge? Who has got that time to waste while it recharges? They have diesel down to where it burns almost clean, with less emissions than a gasoline car, so the benefit of eliminating them is mute. Adding Solar to housing is going to create more issues with fire fighting, building construction and insurance costs. No one is looking at the big picture, the cost to upgrade, or is it downgrade to electric service only. | |
| Susan,Szucs | I’m writing to oppose the proposal to end access to Natural Gas, coal and oil by 2024. I’m at a complete loss as to why we would turn our backs on the abundant resources which God has bestowed on this great nation, in favor of alternate energy resources which are controlled by oligarchs who oppose our standard of living. Please come to your collective senses and reject these proposals for the good of the Citizens of the United States. Respectfully, Susan Szucs | ||
| Laura,Osterhout | I fully support the climate action plan. Our world is on the brink of climate collapse and we should do everything in our power to move away from fossil fuel, natural gas, and coal. | ||
| Anthony ,Porzio | How are the elderly going to pay for all of this. What about people on fixed income. Way to much and to fast. Are we going to depend on China for the solar panels? I don’t see any American companies producing them. What about young struggling families? You do not have any charging station for Automobiles any where. The cost of replacing car battery’s will be about 10,000.00 dollars! Can you recycle them or will they be sitting in a land fill somewhere? Creating another toxic mess?Would you like the rest of us to move out of State too? We can barely get by with the automobiles today. Why are electric car so expensive? All homes will have to have electric service panels upgraded. Who is going to pay for this? There is not enough workers in these fields to get it done in that time frame. How is the electrical grids going to handle this? Best of all how are you going to protect it all from a EMP attack? I am sure there are a lot more questions than this. | ||
| Thomas,Hammel | The climate has been changing for 4 billion years, plant trees, burdening consumers with the astronomical cost of going green is wrong. All of the chapters above represent too much government. | ||
| William ,Brehm | This is an unfunny joke. Idiots are going to legislate policies that will have minimal effect on the environment, but will greatly impact overly burden New York State residents. Natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy. Solar panels require rare earth elements that are strip mined. Windmills kill hundreds of protected birds and require lots of land. Used blades are not recycled and end up in landfills. So called clean energy certainly is not and actually worse for the environment. Lobbyist convince (bribe) politicians to subsidize these to the detriment of the people they are supposed to represent. I wish people would be more honest about the negatives, including the media, but I won’t hold my breath. | ||
| Matthew,Pyle | This is absolutely outrageous, as it stands the electric grid cant even handle when we turn the AC on in the summer and it is supposed to handle all of this added load? It simply wont and it will fail. The local utility company has already warned us that if this goes through they will not be able to meet the demand and to prepare for extended brownouts/blackouts. This will add a HUGE cost to the consumer because houses will need electric services upgraded (multiple thousands of dollars), how is someone who lives paycheck to paycheck supposed to afford that? EVs SUCK for traveling and can NOT replace gas until fully charging an EV takes the same amount of time as pumping a tank of gas. What happens if I need to travel somewhere without an EV charger and can only use the 110v charger that comes with the vehicle? I am supposed to wait 20-40 HOURS before I can drive it again? and that is if I even have an outlet that is accessible at all. If something like this takes effect, businesses and residences will start disconnecting exterior outlets due to power theft from EV chargers. This is impractical and unaffordable! Lets move on to emergency backup power for when all the new EV and electric loads take the grid down. What am I supposed to use to run a backup generator? Cant have natural gas, cant have traditional gas/diesel, cant have propane, so what does it run on? Fairy farts? A battery wont last through a long term event like a hurricane, wind storm, or ice storm. Nor can a battery supply a long term load (unless its a massive battery but GE tried that and they blew up) Tankless electric hot water heaters are extremely expensive and do not work very well. Along with sucking an ENORMOUS amount of power, and hot water that is not really all that hot. Tank based electric hot water heaters use close to $1k/yr to run while a gas fired hot water tank runs around $200-$300 a much more economic option. | ||
| Kerry,Kleckner | I see the Climate Action Plan as having a lot of restrictions forced on New Yorkers. It could result in a lot of people to leave the state. I say let the individual people decide what is best for themselves. The Plan is another instance in loss of freedom. I think if individuals had a choice as to what they want, it would lead to competition in improving utilities and quality of life. My guess is - the Plan will have little effect in natural climate. I think the record shows that over the course of many millennia, the Earth has its ups and downs with heat cycles and carbon dioxide levels long before human civilization. (I saw a program on PBS regarding this.) And by the way, in regard to health, the Plan does not address electromagnetic radiation resulting from radio waves and microwaves from cell phone towers, cell phones and Wi-Fi. What about them? What happens to all the used batteries from old electric vehicles? When the electric grid fails on cold winter days, how do we heat buildings or cook food or take a hot shower? Sorry, but I think the Plan results in making more questions than giving answers to a climate problem. | ||
| Mark,Utz | I have just a few concerns regarding this over reaching, intrusive, interruptive, and ill thought out plan this is. First, communities that live in rural areas are dependent on natural gas to heat their home especially when the power goes out. There have been many times the only heat source has been my gas fireplace. The problem with city politician are they only look at the life from ivory towers. Second, most New Yorkers cannot afford to nor want to step away from gas powered automobiles. Does this socialist state have contracts with John Deere to develop electric tractors? Third, what happened to free choice? This state is becoming more socialist with every decision it makes. As George Orwell said “two legs bad, four legs good” you can train the sheep in this glorious state to spew your nonsense all day long, but the science is not there to back your claims. What an absolute over reach to assume New Yorkers can afford to replace furnaces and piping in older homes to adhere to this stupid legislation. May every one of you morons who thought up this brilliance be replaced. | ||
| Gary,Getselman | You can't be serious about this! The average family cannot absorb the cost of "retooling" to comply with this. Anywhere outside of rattrap NYC would be screwed. Rural communities couldn't afford a mass transit system to get back and forth to work, school, etc. Just another burden on the rest of the state. If you vote for this, I really hope you all would lose your cushy little "get rich off the backs of real human beings" job. You're going to start a civil war with this! | ||
| Michael,Winnicki | Let me be clear, I am all in on clean energy. However, until sufficient inexpensive clean energy is available, it would be foolish to eliminate fossil fuels and assume the low and middle class will not pay a terrible economic price for this. I would strongly advise reading Koonin’s book, “Unsettled “. before carrying out such a drastic plan. Where is all of the electricity needed for this change to come from with our current technology? Are we going to be cutting down forests for wind and solar power? Forests are an essential part of carbon capture. Please reconsider the dates proposed for this changeover to be fluid to accommodate the technology needed for the transition! | ||
| Martha,Upton | Sierra Club, Climatesmart Phillipstown Task Force | ||
| Asha ,Bencosme | The draft scoping plan does not name the New York State Education Department (NYSED) in this document as necessary partners in educating & preparing our children for a significant climate & energy transition. NYSED should be tasked with updating curricula as soon as possible to include necessary adaptation & resiliency skills, including the conservation of limited resources & preparing for a broad range of climate threats including food insecurity, grid failure, drought conditions etc. Career & guidance services should inform students about sectors where there will be growing opportunities & job stability, especially as we anticipate stranded assets & divergence from existing industries, in the energy transition. Additionally, given how quickly we are aiming for a transformation, more industry experts must be encouraged to educate & develop the workforce. Those in academia may not have sufficient information & experience in a rapidly changing environment, to prepare students. I agree with the CJWG that waste to energy incinerators cannot be included in the pathway to achieve 70x30. We must evaluate the way products are made & discarded and restructure processes so that we have circular systems to reduce waste, where possible. Environmental justice communities are already bearing a heavy burden and we must move away from this model. | ||
| Melanie,Falco | This plan is too quick. The infrastructure is not in place, especially in our rural counties for changes this drastic. Electric vehicles are too expensive (especially for large families like mine) - and they do not have the drive time per charge that I require to transport my family. That change alone would require me to leave the state. Natural gas is essential for affordable living in NYS. We previously transitioned our home from electric heat and appliances to natural gas and saved THOUSANDS of dollars per year, hundreds of dollars per month. The inability to do this with a future house would disable us from home ownership. Electricity infrastructure is not at the place to be able to handle these proposed changes at this time. My town just offered the option to switch to community solar and it still has to be supplemented because there is not long-term energy storage solutions available. | ||
| Angela,Kelschenbach | Reliance on finite fuels will continue to cause future problems. We need renewable resources. Efficient energy usage. Focus on environmental effects of fossil fuels. This should be your focus. | ||
| Jesse,Griffis | I like everything about this plan. I'm not afraid of costs because I understand that scale will reduce the cost of amy technology over time and generate new efficiencies. NYS should get out in front of this and lead for a change instead of letting others go first. | ||
| Tim,Talley | I can only imaging how much money you spent on this draft plan. This is complete and unbelievable nonsense. Your plans, if implemented, just might result in the destruction of this State based on your unreasonable assumptions about the future. My recommendation is that you stop this madness. | ||
| Francis,Mest | This Climate change regulations ar BS. They will hurt the little guy. Trying to hang on . it will kill the economy. It. Will crash the electric grid. You have to use energy , coal, gas, ect to make electric. The only thing you are doing is bank rupting America. We have plenty of energy recourse. The rest of the world is laffing. This bs will make us a 3erd world country. And the climate has been changing for a malinia. Go look at some rocks. Its a scam on the american people. Vote No | ||
| Jon,Gruchala | I completely disagree with proposals to phase out the use of natural gas for heating, cooking, clothes drying, industrial processes or any other use. Natural gas is clean burning, abundant and inexpensive. Eliminating its use will drive up residential energy costs tremendously, as well as the cost to produce food and every other consumer product that requires energy somewhere in its production. It is essentially another form of taxation. This in turn will give New York residents further incentive to leave the state, something that is already happening with ever increasing frequency. This proposal is all cost and no benefit. | ||
| Raymond,Tompkins | The government needs to stay out of are business this is still a free country and we shouldn't be forced in to anything we don't want to do it should be volunteer. This is why I don't vote Democrat | ||
| David,Weagley | I think your plan needs a lot more study. Natural gas heating in homes can be very efficient with very small emissions. Forcing the changes you propose with natural gas and gas cars is going to need some significant changes in the creation of electricity. How can you have this plan without a detailed plan to supply electricity not just for New York but the US. | ||
| Ronald,Jozwiak | Global warming has been occurring since the ice sge. Going all electric was tried in the past and was proven to be a total failure. Young people are leaving NYS already, this will hasten their exodus. At what cost to the remaining people? Government subsidies are nothing more than more taxes. The technology is lacking. We experience black outs on a routine basis. You ask we readjust our heating and air conditioning to prevent outages now, what happens with this asinine proposal? Again, at what cost to the consumers, many who are and will be elderly? Why ? Technology is there for cleaner systems utilizing current energy. Further development would even make systems using fossil fuels more efficient. Again, why? I urge this proposal be scrapped and alternatives be explored. | ||
| Jason ,Miller | Eliminating the use of natural gas, propane and heating oil will substantially increase the state’s demand for electricity and prove costly for consumers and businesses. | ||
| Peter,Stoermer | PER REPORT: Peak load nearly doubles by 2050, with offshore wind 20 GW), solar 60 GW, and 4- and 8-hour battery storage 20 GW by 2050. Chart shows 150,000GWh as combined total for 2018 The Climate Act 70% renewable by 2030. Also requires 6GW solar by 2025 and 3GW of energy storage be installed by 2030. Aggressive deployment of existing renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, and energy storage. By 2040, the Climate Act requires zero-emissions electricity system as well as 9GW of offshore wind by 2035. Achieving this will require all of the actions identified for 2030, further procurement of renewables, and a focus on developing new technology solutions The new Climate Act targets requires higher levels of energy storage as exemplified in the recent Power Grid Study which identified a need for more than 15 GW of energy storage. Current studies identify that even after full deployment of available clean energy technologies, there is a remaining need for 15 GW to 25 GW of electricity generation in 2040 to meet demand and maintain reliability, although that gap may change over time. QUESTIONS: How much energy will be needed to power NY in 2050, given an all-electric future state? What is the total renewable energy infrastructure cost to deliver it? How long will battery storage last during any weather-related incidents? What happens when renewables like wind and solar are unusuable? How are electic rates going to stay regulated when you only have one provider? Is there going to be competition? Why is nuclear not at least being explored? From an energy-density and emissions standpoint, it is certainly worth discussing. What isn't really clear are the realities and contingencies that need to be put in place when "worst case, worst fears" become a reality. I think we are underestimating the risks. Events like this will happen. https://www.texastribune.org/series/winter-storm-power-outage/ It will get worse before it's better. | ||
| Tyler,Terry | One word. Deregulation That is what New York needs This is all nonsense that will hurt new yorkers. Leave people alone. Let them live there lives Solar and wind are not viable replacement for natural gas and gasoline and even coal. They will cause more pollution than you think they will prevent. | ||
| Greg,Falco | PLEASE do not approve the elimination of the use of natural gas, propane and heating oil in our homes. I see that the proposal is: - No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; - No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; - No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030 I stand opposed to these moves in this time frame and urge you to take whatever steps necessary to reject these proposed changes. | ||
| Brett,Stewart | We don't have enough electricity during a 5 day heat wave, yet you think eliminating all other forms of power is going to help this? You do realize that people will move out of state as will businesses. Both of which generate and pay the taxes that support this insanity. Instead of running an imaginary competition with California as to which state can become less inhabitable, try using our tax dollars to fix the roads, fix the schools, and better support our front line hero's! | ||
| Steve,Schmidt | This has to be unconstutional , you are controling our lives and destroying our infastructure at the same time , we can not live with everything electric , this whole plan should be scraped , just look how foolish europe is now that they are depending on Green , what a joke | ||
| Chris ,Malinowski | I do not want an electric furnace. I do not want an electric car. I do not want an electric water heater.I want buildings with natural gas built after 2024. I want new gas furnaces installed in new houses. I want a gas automobile. | ||
| tina ,salemi | I do not want an electric furnace. I do not want an electric car. I do not want an electric water heater.I want buildings with natural gas built after 2024. I want new gas furnaces installed in new houses. I want a gas automobile. | ||
| Fred,Thurnherr | Entire plan will cause economic disaster for Upstate NY without provding any measurable ecological benifit to residents of the State. | ||
| cindy,bujanowski | I do not want an electric furnace. I do not want an electric car. I do not want an electric water heater.I want buildings with natural gas built after 2024. I want new gas furnaces installed in new houses. I want a gas automobile. | ||
| Frank,Marando | I oppose this nonsense in its entirety. Shame on you for all the misery this will cause working men and women in NY. | ||
| Kathleen,Mueller | I would like to see cleaner air as most people do, but if we rely on our electric system to supply our electric to our homes, there will not be enough electric to power everything we have. Sometimes, my electric goes out for no apparent reason. You add in all the electric cars, electric for all our appliances, and it will be a disaster if we don't strengthen our electric power sources. | ||
| Kahlan,Poltorak | I hope that NYS becomes a leader in Climate Justice practices as well as providing guidance to other states. This plan will force companies to act with public health and safety in mind. It is not enough to acknowledge that our environment has been depleted in many ways. Real actions from the government and companies of all sizes will be meaningful if they reduce our carbon footprint, reduce waste, and protect wildlife. Climate Justice is important for our peers- both human and nonhuman. Animals, plants, and the air we breathe must be protected as well as ourselves. | ||
| shelly,mcdonnell | I do not want an electric furnace. I do not want an electric car. I do not want an electric water heater.I want buildings with natural gas built after 2024. I want new gas furnaces installed in new houses. I want a gas automobile. | ||
| Ingrid,Zabel | I would like to highlight the importance of outreach and education for achieving New York State's climate action goals. It is very hard to motivate people to take action or support action on a topic they know nothing about, or that they've only been exposed to disinformation about. Scientifically sound outreach and education can help people understand the issues and influence their behavior (see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206266 for a study that quantified the reduction of individual carbon emissions from people who had taken a university course on climate change.) The Draft Scoping Plan accurately describes outreach and education as "essential elements" for success. I would add K-12 education to the list of education activities that must be pursued. | ||
| joseph,gray | My family and I object to this entire Climate Action Plan. 1- climate always changes - 12000 years ago WNY was under a mile of ice! thank God for a warming planet. 2- Electricity must be produced from other sources of energy and therefore has inherent conversion loses creating a greater overall energy consumption. 3- Has the most damaging impact to the poorest in our community 4- Solar and wind genertion has a damaging impact on our farming community, taking up valuable land and resources to make, construct and in many cases destroy valuable farm land. Damages and kills the migrating birds.pollutes the air and water with rare earth metals. 5- Forces reasonable productive people who don't want to live in a NYS distopia to migrtate to a rational state. | ||
| Paul,Kreher | As a citizen of this state, and of planet Earth, I'm thrilled to see NYS taking an active legislative stand on protecting our environment. The plan does this in a way that is planned, progressive, inclusive, and thorough. States such as NYS have to lead the way, as our Federal legislators are too stymied by gridlock, powerful interests, and inaction. I encourage this plan and hope it can be as aggressive as possible in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and move in the direction of a sustainable economy. I understand that some sacrifice and effort will be required, especially by those in a position of affluence and priviledge. It is high time we did this. If gas stays at a high price, that will surely encourage the private sector and consumers to finally move more aggressively toward more energy efficient forms of transportation. The same theory applies toward consumer goods, energy, and land use. Please don't let a minority of loud naysayers put any parts of this plan in jeopardy! | ||
| David,Farace | As a concerned citizen of this state, I can not help but think that a lot of this really doesn’t make sense. As I am aware, working in the electrical field our infrastructure is in need of a lot of maintenance, and we do not have enough workers as it is to keep up with the demand. Our government also does not do much to help the cause and let people know the job opportunities in the trade fields. Our electrical grid systems are almost already maxed out and cannot keep up with the growing demand and greed of energy. We can also see that the geography of NYS would not utilize fully renewable energy source like geothermal heating, solar and wind much more then they already are. Electric vehicles are not any better for the environment then gas vehicles. So what I am really trying to say is this is a bunch of political BS! I hope you care about all the citizens of this state and I hope you don’t act out changes that a corrupt government would force on its people. | ||
| Casey ,Sercu | I have no idea who comes up with these changes. Do you live in all electric house? I do. It is not cost effective, it is not efficient, and guess what happens when the power goes out. The state has no infrastructure set up. This is one more way to push more people out of NYS | ||
| Kyle,Gregoire | This plan is complete and utter rubbish, and political theater. Natural gas is clean burning it does not put CO2 into the atmosphere, this is why we use it in our homes for cooking and drying clothes. Heating homes in New York will put strain on our electrical grid that it can not sustain. Also utility costs will be multiple times higher than they currently are to get the same btu output, furthermore a vast amount of electricity comes from coal power plants thus creating more emissions. Electric vehicles may be the future, however the technology is no where near viable for mass scale implementation. The electric lines will burst into flames if everyone in a neighborhood had to charge their vehicles, not to mention mining of the minerals required is detrimental to the environment in itself. The great thing about our country is the free markets evolve to meet demand, if these were superior ideas consumers would be asking for these technologies, not the government forcing them upon us. Solar panels also are not a viable and bring about a tremendous amount of downside. Keep your political ideology out of politics and science and do what is right for all people not just pander to an ideological uninformed base | ||
| Michael,Bovee | Anyone endorsing something this stupid and unnecessary is an idiot. I love where I live but will now consider leaving the state of New York! | ||
| Michael,Horrigan | Unachievable, huge waste of taxpayer time and money. We are egotistical if we believe that one state can make any measurable improvement in the global problem. The costs and inconvenience is far greater than anything we may achieve . Mother Nature will prevail no matter what. | ||
| Garry,Daigler | This plan is the biggest scam on the New York taxpayer. The renewable sources you site are extremely costly, must have government funding and definitely not achievable. The cleanest energy by far is natural gas and you are eliminating it from our choice. You fail to understand or even comprehend that natural gas is the most efficient and effective use of energy to heat homes in this obvious cold weather of New York. Electrical heat is exponentially more energy use as well as inefficient and we can not supply enough of it because we don’t have any of the infrastructure to support any of your plan. We need new leadership that understands the reality of which we live in not this plan of obscurity proposed. We should stop sending power from the Niagara power project to nyc and see how well they do. We will keep the power here to help the local poet and stop the long transmissions so we can operate your plan. How well will nyc do then. Get with reality and stop this obvious government oversight and disaster plan. | ||
| Joseph,Harvey | This plan is based on faulty reasoning. It will cost too much money. It is unnecessary. A lot of diesel & coal are used to generate the electricity where solar panels are manufactured. Batteries are not environmentally friendly. | ||
| Georgia,Macy | I am all for climate change and lowering emissions. BUT, you have to be sure that all your ducks are in a row BEFORE YOU stop gas and other essentials. We CAN NOT be left in the lurch because of failed planning ahead. Electric cars run on batteries that need to be charged and there are not that many charging stations yet. What are you going to do with the batteries that are no longer useful? How much fossil fuel use goes into the making of these batteries? These are a couple of questions I have at this point. Thank you for your time. Georgia Macy | ||
| Dan,Leroy | Stop right now, the environmental impacts of production of required batteries far exceed the benefits. Production of 1 Ev battery contributes carbon emissions equal to 80k miles to be driven by that EV. No infrastructure to support additional load on electrical systems, which will drive affordability of the charts for consumers Can’t heat with gas,oil, propane then back to burning wood, so how is that a benefit to going green when we strip the land of trees. Ev limit the length of continuous travel with battery limitations, gas fill up takes less than 5 mins, best quick or fast charge is 45mins, every 300 miles Homes not equipped with 3 phase power are limited to a charging rate of 6 miles per charging hour utilizing 220 vac single phase with the Tesla home charger. Only way to produce heat from electricity is through inefficiency…….more cost to yield heat production This is a disaster and obvious over reach, and goes against the values of the constitution | ||
| Adam,Sacca | I am 100% against everything your trying to do with these changes Climate Change is a natural progression of this world it's been changing since God created it many years ago so what your trying to do will have 0 impact and it will only cost the middle class more money. Remember when paper bags where bag so we got rid of them for plastic? How'd that work out? Please leave us alone stop trying to change what doesn't need to be fixed. Keep it in the middle 100% transition from gas to electric is an awful idea and the same would be said if we were trying to get rid of electric we don't need 100% of either, electric is good and so is gas and natural gas and coal and other energy sources all your trying to do it line your pockets Stop! Your greed is killing the middle class. Remember you work for the people not your own greed but for some reason you can't figure out why people are leaving New York at record rates it because your "green" and liberal woke ways aren't helping anyone so once again I say Stop! | ||
| Dennis ,Anthony | Leave everything along. You’re a hundred years from being ready to get rid of natural gas , and gas power cars and machinery. When you are producing enough electricity to cover everything and have a strong enough grid to transport it. Leave everything alone ! | ||
| Kathryn,Foit | Kathryn Foit | I have reviewed all aspects and feel that these are an excellent start to solving our environmental crisis. It is too bad this wasn't done earlier but at least this is a great effort and I commend the committee for a well-thought-out plan. Thank you for your efforts! | |
| Albert E,Martin | Hello from Lancaster, where almost all our homes are heated by natural gas. Closing off the natural gas supply for home heating, cooking, and water heating is the most egregious move I have ever heard of. Mostly, it will hurt the middle and low income families from gaining the necessary and most efficient fuel for heating and cooking. ELECTRIC POWER WILL BE UNAFFORDABLE. Emissions from home heating and cooking are minuscule compared to what is put out by other sources. HELP ME AND EVERYONE ELSE HEAT OUR HOMES EFFICIENTLY AND ECONOMICALLY! DO NOT ELIMINATE NATURAL GAS FOR HOME USE!!!! | ||
| Norman ,Pragle | I am opposed to this plan, as it is a too zealous and it tries to "fix" too many problems at one time, too quickly. Our antiquated electrical power grid cannot, and will not be able to satisfy the demand. Please don't enact this present plan. | ||
| David,Green | Retired Citizen | This plan is based upon bad science and subjective opinion on so-called "climate change", bordering on religious fanaticism. I have been hearing the left crying wolf about radical environmentalism since the 1973 Arab Oil Crisis when I was 10 years old growing up south of Buffalo. I remember how nasty Lake Erie was back then - you didn't want to swim in it - how black the sky was in Lackawanna and South Buffalo and how the glue factory and tannery in my home town polluted the air and the Cattaraugus Creek. I look around today and the air and water are cleaner than ever, at the price of industry shutting down and moving away. Couldn't it have been done in a partnership that would have kept them around, along with the jobs and the tax base? NY should avoid central economic planning. This plan will result in rising costs, dependability will decrease, businesses and paycheck earners will suffer, before they join the millions who have already left the state. It is only a matter of time before I, reluctantly, join them. We have seen this before. We know the result. This is all being done to consolidate political power over the citizenry. The goal is tyranny. These new technologies should be allowed to develop on their own in a free market. The government should stay out. Let them succeed or fail on their own merits. The world is not going to end from manmade activity, short of global nuclear war. Some things could be done in a partnership way to improve environmental stewardship without hurting the economy. But we all know that problem-solving is not the goal here. Political power acquisition and money-making by those who have a stake in ramming these stupid ideas down our throats is the real goal. Along with the tree-hugging idealists that are being used to further their corrupt politicians ends. I am so disgusted with our state and federal government. D Green - Husband/Father/Grandfather/Christian/Marine/Educator/Trucker/American | |
| Andy,Karetsky | Skyview Ventures LLC | A mandatory market-based clean fuel standard is a key tool for attracting capital to finance ZEV charging and fueling infrastructure. Skyview Ventures and other investors have committed millions of dollars in private capital to build low carbon transportation infrastructure in California due to the LCFS program there. New York should pursue a clean fuel program modeled on California's successful LCFS program as a primary means for accelerating the deployment of ZEV infrastructure in the state. | |
| Dieter,Kraemer | Once again, the liberal progressives who know nothing about electricity, the grid, storage and transmission are following a political agenda. When you can't make a living in the private sector you can always become an elected official. This piece of legislation will only drive the working class to move to other states, The welfare class will continue to grow in this state. | ||
| geoff,pyle | • Electricity system reliability beyond 2040, increased electrification results in electric consumption doubling and peak load nearly doubling by 2050, The grid is not set up to supply this much power and the cost to upgrade it will be signifigant. | ||
| James,Cornell | Creative and innovative proposals. Please keep NY in the forefront of combatting climate change. | ||
| Mark,Nowak | Window Specialist Inc. | I totally appose the plan to eliminate all natural gas for home use as well as the elimination of gasoline vehicles. I feel the electric option is not cost effective and to force New Yorker's to conform will drive even more people from the state of New York. What happened to our freedom of Choice? | |
| Donna,Krajewski | n/a | It is not in our best interests to FORCE TOTAL ELECTRIC USAGE IN ANY OF OUR HOMES. APPLIANCES, CARS ETC. - NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY AFFORD TO REPLACE THE APPLIANCES THAT USE GAS NOW- SUCH AS FURNACES, STOVES ETC-- NO ONE- AND ESPECIALLY NOT PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOME (LIKE MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND) WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY AND NO LAW SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INFRINGE BY FORCING A SUPREMELY MORE EXPENSIVE ALL ELECTRIC SOCIETY - THIS IS SIMPLY NOT A SOLUTION- IN WESTERN NY WE ARE ALREADY PAYING OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNTS FOR ELECTRIC BILLS- AND YET WE HAVE NIAGARA FALLS AS OUR NEIGHBOR WHO SUPPLIES ELECTRIC TO OTHER AREAS! WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HAVE LOWER BILLS!! WE PLEAD THAT YOU DO NOT ALLOW THIS. WHOEVER THOUGHT THIS PLAN SHOULD BE ACCEPTED IS DICTATORSHIP. LAST I CHECKED- WE THE PEOPLE HAD A SAY IN HOW OUR WELL-B EING SHOULD BE DECIDED- IF YOU FORCE TOTAL ELECTRIC FOR EVERYTHING - WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY- WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING WE WILL BE A POLICE STATE. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND WE OPPOSE IT WITH VEHEMENCE. IT TAKES AWAY OUR RIGHTS -Whoever is pushing this agenda is not thinking about how it will affect the general public who are not wealthy. Who's actually supposed to be benefiting from this ridiculous idea? THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES! SO WE SAY NO! NO! NO!YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE THIS ON US. | |
| ROBERT,GIELOWSKI | Please don't force on me something I don't want and can't afford. | ||
| matt,petroski | self | You are ramming an agenda down the throats AND POCKETBOOKS of the residents of NY State. We do not agree with your position, nor have you provided anything but your desire to establish a narrative that this is required with draconian measures. The electric grid today, nor in 10 years is prepared to handle an electric economy. And the electric economy is sustained by fossil fuel energy generation. You are replacing one program with another and NOT SOLVING A THING. Plus the destruction of the worldwide environment by strip mining raw materials to make batteries with a thought you are helping is completely flawed. Stop this insanity, stop rushing an agenda down the throat of the tax payer. I too care about the environment but this is not the solution. China is pumping out carbon emissions xx times the entire US. India is pumping out carbon emissions xx times the entire US. This is not the solution, but as a result you are penalizing the taxpayers of NY State. | |
| Kenneth,Maskulinski | 12865766US4 | This is by far the dumbest idea that our reps in Albany have come up with ever. Natural gas is far more efficient to heat with than electricity. The power grid in NYS constantly fails especially during ice, snow and wind storms in thw winter and cold months. How are people to stay war? How are people going to cook and eat when the grid is down for a few days or weeks.The state does not consist of just NY city. It is open land and farm area. Are we all supposed to buy and run gas generators during these constant outages? That is really environmentally sound. Common sense, of which there is non in Albany would tell this idea is wrong. NYSEG is already looking to tax it's customers to rebuild it's power grid because it is old and failing, that shows that converting homes to only electric will not work.If this is done then every politician that votes in favor of this should be able to be held responsible for the deaths and illnesses that people will suffer when their power is off line. | |
| Elaine ,Geiger | I will comment with just one word….NO!!! stupid idea | ||
| Gregg,Hartvigsen | The plan looks incredibly well thought out and timely. I fully support the initiatives that work to make NY a leader in climate sustainability practices while taking into consideration environmental justice concerns. Way to go! I with those in Western NY were educated enough to understand the importance of this plan. | ||
| Mark ,Hummel | Retired | I think the date's to leave fossel fuel are to soon. I also have concerns about total electric reliance, l also feel we should vote state wide before any changes Are made. Please take the time to get this right don't judge the future of our great state until everyone has a chance to express there views. Mark Hummel 6/29/22. | |
| Dan,Lindsay | The plan to eliminate gas furnaces and appliances is just ridiculous, it's bad enough you're trying to remove all gas vehicles but appliances as well. Crazy. Cost of electricity is already rising. How will roads be maintained without the gas tax? There must be a secret plan In place to add an electricity surcharge that no one is talking about. | ||
| Adriana ,Vega | Public Defender/Family Law Attorney | ||
| Susan,Joyce | I do not believe this is the right direction for moving to an all electric society. We will overwhelm the power grid which we already know at times when usage is high (summer) can not handle it already. What do you think will happen if we all move over to electricity only. Not to mention the conglomerate that it is going to create. There is domino affect that will happen and it will cost more in the long run. We should be working towards supporting the two options we have and finding ways to increase our gas output here in the states and not rely on other foreign countries. I do not support this climate action that is being proposed. | ||
| Brian,Marrano | Northridge Nursery and Garden Cente r Inc. | I am opposed to this plan. | |
| MICHAEL,LOZINSKY | I hope with all the proposals with no more this and that you will be providing the average taxpayer relief in the form of a payment when and if this becomes effective. Maybe we could worry about other things like oh I do not know actual People and not the environment with no plan in place to effectively deal with replacement. This is only happening because of the the crazy people think the end of the world is near.......ITS NOT | ||
| Miles,Heller | Air Products | Attached - please find our comments. These were also sent via email. | |
| Patricia,Costanzo | IP Law Office of Patricia Costanzo | Like most people, I dislike the costs in money, time and efforts that the the changes in energy use will require but as a trained geologist I know the dire threats we facing due to climate change. I want a future for my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and that can only happen by changing the negative effects we are placing on the Earth, its atmosphere, and all of its forms of life. There is no need to go into all of the details that could be used to amplify my statements because we know most, if not all, of them and we are already living through many of the consequences. The all-around economic consequences of not making the proposed changes will be far, far greater than the economic consequences we will face by making the change to limit to the non-use of natural gas. Please do the right thing, please develop a draft Scoping Plan that will serve as a framework for how the State will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy usage, and ensure climate justice. | |
| Timothy,McCarthy | These are ridiculous! Who the h--- is running this State! | ||
| Laurene,George | We are totally on board for "clean energy" but not unless the GOVERNMENT plans to pay for updating people's homes from heating oil to something else. Electric cars cost $60,000 once again unless the GOVERNMENT plans to pay for it than we are all in for "clean energy". The government claims are electrival grill is "wonky" but your not doing anything to upgrade the systems but you want us in electric cars,I was in 7th grade when we had the blackout of 1977 and I'm pretty sure nothing has been done to actually upgrade the system but you want us to plug in our EV cars? ? Are the planes going to use solar panels and wind turbines to fly?? You know because of the "clean energy "? We do our part,we have solar portable generators,conserve energy in the house but using them for lights,charging our cellphones or running the fans,we drivery our vehicle once a week and try to everything in that one trip,we take the Express Bus for appointments because the subways are worse than they were in the 1970s. We have purchased electric bikes and fixed up our old ones. We've done our part......but your plan to rely on the Sun and Wind isn't going to cut it. | ||
| David,Lowrey | I need to plan my move out of New York State. The sooner, the better. | ||
| Jeffrey,Kenville | Absolutely will not comply, you will not dictate what we the people can and can not buy. | ||
| Thomas,Hogge | SUNY ESF | The Draft Scoping Plan is missing references to the profession of Landscape Architecture and its great potential to contribute to the State’s climate action goals. Landscape Architects play a pivotal role in many areas covered by the Draft Scoping Plan, including but not limited to: public health and the environment, transportation, planning, forestry, green infrastructure, and climate change resiliency. Please add the term “Landscape Architect” to all cases where “architect,” “engineer,” or “planner” is used within the Draft Scoping Plan. In addition, please recognize Landscape Architects’ critical role in creating public spaces for communities that are healthy in all aspects. | |
| ROBERT,ENGEL | SHAMEL MILLING CO. INC | THIS IDEA WILL DRIVE ELECTRIC COST UPWARD AND DRIVE MANUFACTURING OUT OF NEW YORK. YOUNGER FAMILIES WILL LEAVE NY AND GO TO STATES WHER THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PUT UP THIS STUPIDITY. ISN'T THERE ANY COMMON SENSE WITH THE POLITICIANS? INFLATION IS HERE NOW, AND THIS WOULD MAKE IT WORSE. WE DO NOT HAVE AND HAVEN'T HAD ANY NEW ELECTRIC LINES BUILT IN 50 YEARS. WHERE IS ALL OF THE ELECTRIC COMING FROM? TOO BAD THESE IDEAS WOULD NOT PASS THE KINDERGARDEN LEVEL AND WE ARE SUPPOSE TO LIVE BY THIS. USE YOUR HEAD AND THINK THIS 0UT. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT SOLAR AND WIND WILL GIVE US ALL OF THE ELECTRIC THAT WE NEED? SOLAR AND WIND COST ARE HIGHER NOW! HAS ANY ONE HAD 1 COURSE IN ECONOMICS 101, SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO A COST STUDY WITH COMMON SENSE. | |
| Steven,Kellerman | I am against everything presented in this plan. This climate issue is all smoke n mirrors by the Demoncrats so they can proceed for what they really have planned. Solar and geothermal are not new. I had solar on my last home and plan to have both solar and geothermal in my new home because of the utility cost savings for my family. I specifically request that when this comes to a vote that you will vote against this plan. I will be watching. | ||
| James,Campisano | I think the whole thing stinks. That's why my family and I have come to the realization that it is time for us to find a new home. We are just a working family that gets shoved further under day after day. So thanks but no thanks. | ||
| Mary,Elliott | New York’s climate plan is dangerous and unsustainable. Not to mention outrageously expensive. It will bankrupt businesses and bankrupt the state. We could potentially be without enough power during the coldest months of the year, putting thousands of people at risk. At the very least a cost-benefit analysis should be done. New York contributes very little to global carbon emissions. Despite being one of the largest states it contributes only about 3% of the nation’s emissions. We are already a green state. | ||
| Joseph,Bella | I believe the free market should decide whether or not to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road. Consumers will weigh the consequences of electrical fire, cost, efficiency and emissions in their decisions. Regulating electric vehicles is an unjust entrance of NYS into the free market, and will put our State's residents at a disadvantage in choice compared to others in the country. Electric vehicles cost more. Manufacturers spend billions subsidizing the development costs and raw materials costs. Did you know that without the Japanese government's contributions during the Toyota Prius' development, the company would have never completed the project? Even then, for the first 6 years or so of production, Toyota lost money on every Prius product sold. Companies profits will suffer, shareholders will suffer, and inevitably, they will probably leave the NYS market, just as they are currently leaving California's market. This will lead to less choice, and a socialistic scheme of what cars and trucks a New Yorker is "allowed" to buy. You cannot regulate technology...it must be allowed to evolve and improve enough for the consumer to become interested. Until then, the technology is not ready for broad-scale application. Furthermore, why is it that our legislators believe Electric Vehicles are "green"? Have any of them seen a Cobalt, or Lithium mine in other countries? They scar the earth, and do they believe those other countries have nearly the stringent emissions rules that the United States has for mining operations? Do they realize the energy to charge the batteries still comes from fossil fuels which energize our electric grid? And what of the batteries after the end of their useful life? Recycle? Some components, you can't...We are kicking the proverbial "pollution bucket" down the road. Forcing EVs down the throats of New Yorkers would be contributing to climate pollution in a far far worse way than we are today. | ||
| David,Dudziak | none | When we convert to electric, where is the energy going to come from? We now have black outs in NYC and California. The demand, cost and lack of power will increase the need for new electric generation which isn't being addresses. Power plants using nuclear, and other energy sources are being shut down and already there is a crisis. Add billions if not trillions of KWH needed for home heating, electric cars without having the resources in place to provide that energy is insane. Being able to only drive a few hundred miles than stop to recharge for HOURS ( If you can find a recharging station) will never fly with the american public. Costs will be through the roof not only for the vehicles but also for the power DEMANDED. Solar- wind? spotty at best - No wind day- no power no sunny day- little power out put. Does everyone on this board already drive electric cars? NY to buffalo is currently 7 1/2 to 8 hours- with the need to recharge are you willing to make it a 16-18 hour drive? What about air travel ? Pipe dreams at best | |
| Richard,Kozell | I want to keep natural gas for homes and appliances. And I want to keep gasoline for autos. | ||
| Raymond,Bies | In particular scrap all of the below. Are you trying to get rid of the rest of the residents from this state? As well as any new business that may want to come here? Other than a few, who can afford all this nonsense? No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and Installing geothermal heating by 2040 | ||
| Paul,Arsenault | We are a carbon based life form of which 18% of our body weight is carbon. We need carbon to survive. I know there is much we can do, but going to EV's and only using electric for everything is the classic way to make all of humankind slaves to globalist overloads. Have you looked at the environmental disaster a lithium battery mine creates. The diesel fuel needed to mine the battery, plus the electric to charge it. If everyone buys an EV, there will be an electricity shortage and the price per kilowatt will go up to a point that any savings will be negated. Natural Gas burns clean, why would anyone of sound mind want to do away with that. WHAT IS THE AGENDA HERE! Just my two cents! | ||
| Joseph,Bella | As a registered voter, taxpayer (on two properties!), and citizen of New York State - I am fully disappointed in the lack of forethought with which these proposals have been drafted. My concerns are primarily focused in the following ways: Lack of individual choice for taxpayers and property owners to choose which method of energy usage and transportation suits their families best, an increased energy and transportation cost to the NYS consumer by an order of magnitude 200-400% higher, and all of this burden for an effort that will make no measurable difference in climate status. First of all, I am a friend of the environment, but also a realist. I compost, recycle (what materials actually get recycled), and use non-toxic chemicals when available to clean and operate my household among other things. Yet, I recognize that the impact New York State regulations have on the climate of the planet is minuscule and laughable. Therefore, I can only conclude that our legislators are pursuing these regulations out of narcissism. Such egotistical efforts will hurt New Yorkers (ALL of New Yorkers, especially those who live in the suburban and rural vast geographical majorities of the state) in the form of higher energy costs, limited choices in how an individual can go about their daily lives. With respect to NYS climate leadership - unless NYS can propose some method in which we can measure the climate and identify the impact that NY regulations can and will have, then I believe the entire proposal should be paused until such a measurement can be established. There is currently no scientific way to quantify how NYS leads climate solutions. Simply itemizing regulations, and presenting data on emissions does not satisfy this requirement. Without scientific data collection, we are simply "pissing into the wind" as the cliché goes. | ||
| Charles,Keenan | To whom it may concern: This plan is way too ambitious and not realistic in its ends. The current economy in NY and around the country is being sacrificed for Green Energy goals that are not realistic and are killing the lower and middle class with horrible inflation. If this is something that NYC or the city of Albany wishes, let them go forward with this plan but don't impose this extreme plan on the rest of the state. Please listen to the people. Sincerely Charles Keenan Groveland | ||
| John,Smith | This entire plan is idiotic! We don't have the electrical infrastructure, and won't by 2035, to have our cars transition from gas to electric. And not allowing anything new for natural gas, are you insane? For people who have gas appliances, you will be forcing them to spend money they don't have to install the electric service as well as the cost of electric appliances. You people have lost touch with what the public wants and what is realistic. | ||
| Anne,Godfrey | SUNY ESF | The Draft Scoping Plan is MISSING references to the profession of LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE and its great potential to contribute to the State’s climate action goals. Landscape Architects play a pivotal role in many areas covered by the Draft Scoping Plan, including but not limited to: public health and the environment, transportation, planning, forestry, green infrastructure, and climate change resiliency. Please add the term “Landscape Architect” to all cases where “architect,” “engineer,” or “planner” is used within the Draft Scoping Plan. In addition, please recognize Landscape Architects’ critical role in creating public spaces for communities that are healthy in all aspects. | |
| Jake,Fredo | Like most other ideas from Albany. Useless. Stop this ridiculous bill | ||
| Eugene,Barwicki | This is way too encompassing. This will break our economy. Let us move Very Slowly in relation to Climate Change reactions. Electric energy is powered by coal or other fossil fuels. This will reak havoc on our economy and our way of life. Take it slow and let science and business lead the way. | ||
| Debbie,Adornetto | Climate change is a natural part of the Earth's existence. I believe in a more balanced approach rather than total elimination of fossil fuels and current energy resources. Take one example: Mining Lithium is a very invasive to our land resources. I do not agree with the goals of the Climate Action Council. I do not appreciate learning of this council so late in this public comment process, so my comment will remain short but staunchly against this agenda. | ||
| william,hay | this will drive a lot of tax paying citizens out | ||
| Robert,Bielecki | Taxpayer | This will never work. Costs will go up, there will be rationing of electricity. No infrastructure to support this. This is not a well thought out plan. This is politics driving the economy. Forcing it down our throats! VOTE THE IMBECILES OUT OF OFFICE | |
| John,Compitello | It's hard to believe our supposed leaders would come up with these idea's / plans. Eliminating sources of energy for home heating, food production, etc. will put millions of New Yorker's lives at risk. The severe detractors will heavily outweigh any perceived benefit. | ||
| Yogi,Adhikari | I support green economy and climate action but now is not the time to decarbonize our economy. The proposed changes are too dramatic with far reaching consequences for housing affordability and will add to additional inflationary pressure to the economy. The changes should be incremental and driven by market forces based on cost-benefit analysis between green energy and hydro-carbon. | ||
| Campbell,Wallace | ACEC New York | ||
| Dale,Bartell | If this legislation passes I will be leaving New York State . | ||
| Brian ,Jones | This new law will wreck NY even further we Already are unable to keep corporations here as they run to Florida. Why would anyone want to use the most expensive utility? Scrap the law. It is a terrible idea I only thank god my wife has finally agreed to move out of state but this is for those who decide to stay | ||
| Andrew,Miller | Velocys | We urge the Climate Action Council to include a firm endorsement of a Clean Fuel Standard in the Transportation Sector Strategies of the final Scoping Plan. Please see the attached letter for our complete comment | |
| John,Blatner | Capital Heat, Inc. | I am all for the mission of eliminating the use of fossil fuel and natural gas / propane and heating oil. We need to take significant and immediate action to change the course of Climate Change in our world. We need to respect the earth we have for our current and future generations. I (we) are in the residential heating/cooling business. I (we) are firm believers in transitioning our industry form conventional HVAC equipment to Heat Pumps. We know from experience they are superior technologies and meet all the future objectives of the State in electrifying America. However, I firmly believe the State Government and the Federal Government should provide the same respect to Air Source Heat Pumps (CCHP’s) as Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP’s) when it comes to Rebates and Tax Credits. There is a greater favor to GSHP’s than CCHP’s. They are subtly different but principally the same technologies. If there is a state tax credit for GSHP’s, there should be the same tax credit for ASHP’s. There are many homes in NYS that will not be able to take advantage of GSHP technology, but CCHP technology will work fine. If both technologies received the same support from NYS, the transition from fossils fuel to HP’s would accelerate. Thanks for all you efforts and the consideration of my comments. John Blatner | |
| Allison,King | This plan is NOT sustainable from a people’s perspective. You elitists can drive your fancy cars and afford fancy appliances, but the rest of us will suffer and probably all leave the state. Good luck governing only yourselves. I love actually sustainable solutions, our electric grid and power generating abilities are not there yet and may not be for a state that has frequent power outages due to storms and the northern climate. Solar is a joke in NY- great for California but we have some of the most cloud covered areas of the country. Please think realistically and govern reasonably. | ||
| Diane,Czuprynski | I have a major concern with how we will be able to accommodate using only solar energy and electricity to power our automobiles, homes, businesses, etc. While hybrid cars are energy efficient, I don't see how an all electric car is safe ( batteries causing fires), or financially better. If a home has to convert to all electric to accommodate all electric appliances, that would mean bringing in a bigger "system" into our homes which will be very costly. Where do we plug in all these electric cars? How can I travel to see family in another state if I have to keep recharging my vehicle? I think we should still keep the natural gas available to New Yorkers because there are many obstacles that need to be discussed, and worked out before these plans are put into place.... | ||
| Mark,Richardson | U.S. Light Energy | To whom it may Concern: My name is Mark Richardson and I am the President & CEO at Solitude Solar, LLC d.b.a. U.S. Light Energy. U.S. Light Energy is a New York based distributed generation energy development company specializing in Community Solar facilities and renewable energy solutions for residential, small commercial, and municipal customers. We create distributed renewable energy projects where everyone can be proud to participate and help create a better future for our children and our planet. To help progress the DG market, New York State is proposing major investments to facilitate and enable growth in renewable generation. These investments include projects to proactively increase the hosting capacity of the grid in constrained locations, Multi-Value Projects that simultaneously address asset condition and reliability issues with enhanced capabilities to support increased amounts of renewable DG, an Active Resource Integration pilot project to dynamically manage DG injections to avoid costly electric system upgrades for short duration constraints and Flexible Load study that will help increase the levels of solar energy that reach the grid and supply customers. Therefore, on behalf of US light energy, I am sending this letter to support the funding for future electric infrastructure investments proposed by the CAC. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark D. Richardson President & CEO U.S. Light Energy Latham, NY 12110 | |
| Thomas,Cicero | Health and Wellness Referral Services | These are idiotic, pie in the sky unattainable goals that common sense says are out of reach | |
| Michele,Clinch | I believe we should keep natural gas as an option for homes and that we should have gasoline powered vehicles. | ||
| Joshua,Bemb | This is ridiculous, most electrical power is generated with natural gas anyway. And how are you going to handle the first power outage in winter and have a bunch of people freeze to death please so not past this. | ||
| Annika ,Leybold | I've lived in Brooklyn for 6 years and in doing mutual aid food work, I've seen firsthand how marginalized, predominantly Black communities have been forgotten by waste management planning in New York City. The 18 million tons of municipal solid waste that is counted in the current plan doesn't begin to account for the lifecycle emissions in the products we use, nor does it address the food insecurity we face today. I would like to see a plan that sets a target of 2030 to end the combustion and landfilling of city organic waste, with specific action plans for phase-down. In order to do this, we need to strengthen to food donation and food scraps recycling law and expand financial assistance for organics recycling infrastructure (or we could create a robust citywide program, but we've been promised that since De Blasio, so I think it's time to focus on people actually doing this work now)! If we're going to achieve this goal by 2030, we need clear, acheivable targets and accountability processes for phasing down waste incineration by ending the renewal of 20-year permits for existing facilities. We must enact "By Request Only" legislation for plastic restaurant products and require reusable / refillable options in shops. We must enact legistlation to reduce single-use plastic packaging and prohibit incineration of plastics waste and all types of plastic burning. I would like to see us strengthen the current recycling laws by estending the bottle bill to include wine, spirits, and non-carbonated drinks, and to increase the deposit from five cents to ten cents. We should require a minimum level of recycled content in package. We should enact a production tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into intermediate produce to locate facilities in New York. And we must provide support and financial assistance to local governments to improve enforcement of recycling programs. Our city and planet desperately need these changes, starting yesterday. | ||
| John ,Roden | This is an outstanding effort please keep up the good work | ||
| James,Cassin | The overall plan is doomed to fail before even starting, the NY electric power grid has issues today in handling demand and you want to increase the demand HUGE. Also cost of heating by electric is more costly that natural gas, another cost of living in NYS that is not sustainable for many. Look at the increased fires in electric vehicles!!! Another challenge for the fire service and take more resources to control than a gas powered vehicle. Let's fix the infrastructure first of the power grid BEFORE adding more demand. Thank you | ||
| William,Fabian | B&B Forest Products | New York’s wood product manufacturers compete on a global stage. Our wood products manufacturers are among the most energy intensive and trade exposed (EITE) manufacturers in New York, and yet the draft Scoping Plan does not mention them as exposed to these sensitivities. These wood product manufacturers are the largest market driver incentivizing forest landowners to keep their forest as forest. If we are not careful these markets will “leak” out of New York to other states or other countries. In almost every case this “leakage” will result in larger carbon footprints and greater environmental impacts than if these manufacturers remained in New York. Low grade biomass and manufacturing residuals provide an excellent stock for low carbon energy resources. From firewood to high density wood pellets to refined liquid biofuels to residuals from wood product manufacturing used for energy in the production process. The derivation of energy is an optimized end-of-life use for this material that would otherwise be left to decay and release its carbon in the forest or in landfills. Low grade wood and fiber markets are also essential to support sustainable forest management. To take the best and leave the rest results in management known as high grading that is neither sustainable nor healthy for forest regeneration. | |
| William,Fabian | B&B Forest Products | One of the strongest recommendations of the draft Scoping Plan for forests is to keep our forests as forest and even recommendations for planting more forests on suitable lands throughout the State. But keeping our forests means that private forest landowners need to be able to afford their forests, active forest management requires forest landowners to invest in their forests. Afforestation and reforestation also require forest landowners to see a return on the investment of planting trees. While the draft Scoping Plan includes both regulatory and government incentives that will help keep the forest as forest, it is remiss in not addressing the significance of private market forces that are and will be the largest inducement for private forest landowners. If we lose markets for wood products, we will lose our forests. | |
| Randall,Atwater | |||
| Bill,Fabian | B&B Forest Products, Ltd. | Sustainably managed forest yield more than carbon sinks and carbon sequestration. Harvested wood products sequester carbon for long periods of time and offer substitution benefits to products otherwise derived from fossil fuels. Durable wood products used in our buildings and infrastructure contribute upwards to 1.51 MMt of carbon for long periods of time. Wood, or biomass, can deliver substitution benefits for products made consume large quantities of fossil fuels in their production (plastics, metal, and concrete). In addition, there are emerging classes of products that cellulosic biomass can produce that otherwise are produced from fossil fuels – plastics to bioplastics, petrochemicals to biochemicals, diesel to biodiesel. These advanced bioprocessing products have much less carbon emissions than their fossil fuel counterparts and hold the prospect of both new markets for harvested wood and economic benefits of production within New York. | |
| William,Fabian | B&B Forest Products | New York’s forests are the most widespread landscape feature of the State. Nineteen million acres, or 64% of the terrestrial area on New York is forested. Our forests are literally the “lungs” of New York, sequestering over twenty-five million tons of carbon on an annual basis. More importantly, fourteen million acres, or 75%, of our forests, are owned by hundreds of thousands of New Yorker. These family woodlot owners have and continue to steward these forests in a way that benefits all New Yorkers through a healthy and diverse set of ecological and economic benefits that no other natural resource brings to the climate table. About 14% of our forests are owned in what can be categorized as “industrial forests” in large parcels managed in large measure for timber and fiber production. The draft climate Scoping Plan must address both the vastness and diverse private ownerships of our forests in a much more forceful way. We need to focus on strategies that capitalize on sustainable forests that, through active management, bring additionality to the contributions our forests. | |
| Jennifer,DeFrancesco | Regarding embodied carbon overall the Scoping Plan has missed a tremendous opportunity to emphasize the use of wood in buildings and infrastructure. There is a tremendous opportunity to expand the use of wood in both public and private building projects and we should be amending bid requirements, contracts and building codes calling for the use of wood wherever possible as a means of storing carbon in long lived, durable wood products in buildings. It is important to recognize that Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) in regions of NY where temperatures are below zero degree many days, the use of wood as a secondary heat system is mentioned. We need to be consistent in the way we use wood systems for thermal heating in both residential and commercial structures. We would also suggest that in some parts of New York wood based district heating should be considered. There are a number of commercial or institutional, or collection of buildings where wood heat systems make perfect sense. Use of highly efficient, emission compliant chip and pellets wood systems (a.k.a Modern Wood Heat) could provide heat and generate electricity which could be used for charging batteries or storage. At a certain scale and with technological innovation, use of Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) can be a net negative emission. Large wood fired facilities could, at some point, adapt tis technology. Finally, this whole Buildings chapter tends to have a stronger focus on residential and commercial buildings. We need to recognize the heterogeneous natural of commercial; and industrial manufacturing processes and that there should be sector specific and possibly plant specific actions and recommendations. | ||
| Lark ,Rutecki | Mom / School Board Member | Attached | |
| Catherine,Cardina | I support efforts to prevent climate change. | ||
| Keith,Sawyer | Avfuel | Attached is a support letter from Avfuel, a leading independent supplier of aviation fuel and services, including SAF, with a substantial jet-fuel consuming customer base in the state of New York. | |
| Brendan,Manning | AGC NYS, LLC | ||
| Cheyenne,Burke | New York State Bar Association; Environmental and Energy Law Section | ||
| Rob,Richardson | Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planni ng Council | The attached document is a collective response drafted for the Genesee/Finger Lakes Region of New York State. While our 9 member counties (Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, Wyoming, Monroe, Ontario, Wayne, Seneca, Yates) see value in climate action and care deeply about the sustainability in our communities, the current plan discussed in the Draft Scoping Document asks us to forego our ability to meet the State's energy goals and sacrifice the beauty, farmland, and quality of life in our region to support the needs of Downstate. We have serious concerns not only about the cost and approach, but the State's willingness to push forward without a definitive plan or basic logistics in place. We're also extremely concerned about the impact that this could have on residents, and while the massive cost increases are acknowledged, there is no discussion of how they'll be supported in this transition. The response highlights our greatest concerns as a region, and asks questions there should already be answers to. PLEASE review this document, and all other feedback submitted, to fidelity and take the content to heart- otherwise, you're knowingly and willingly sending us down an expensive and dangerous path in the dark. | |
| Charles,Clinton | I applaud the efforts of this group to recognize that climate change does not affect all of us equally but disproportionally affects marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups. I ask our state leadership to take urgently enact the recommendations in this document. | ||
| David,Mirabito | Financial Planner | See attached. | |
| Kris,DeLair | Empire State Energy Association, Inc. | see attached | |
| Gloria,Boyce-Charles | My name is Gloria Boyce-Charles. My family has been actively engaged in the Southeast Queens community since 1975. Public comment periods for the Climate Leadership and CLCPA Draft Scoping Plan and the Disadvantaged Communities Criteria Document are about to expire; yet many people at grassroots levels in the most impacted communities, including elected officials, have not, and likely will not, weigh in by the stated July 1st and July 7th deadlines. In fact, I understand that public participation in the comment process for the Disadvantaged Community Criteria has been particularly low. The unfortunate fact is that too few people within our communities have been aware of this initiative and too little has been done to advise, engage and educate environmental justice communities, especially those in Southeast Queens. Therefore, I am appealing to the leadership within this initiative to rethink their strategy and timelines for accepting comments. As importantly, I ask that you implement an aggressive plan to communicate, educate and engage communities and grassroots organizations. While it is true that an extension has already been issued for the Draft Scoping Plan comment period, it was insufficient to address the above important underlying considerations. The documentation is extensive and can be overwhelming. Communities need support to review them, understand them, and consider their implications, especially considering additional critical issues that are competing for their attention now. What is needed is a comprehensive communication and education plan that emphasizes outreach to community organizations and that includes accessible, facilitated reviews of the issues and documents in question. This may require a revision to project plans and timelines; but, in the absence of this intervention, this initiative promises to be an exercise in futility and inequity. And when it comes to climate change, such failure poses an existential threat to us all. | ||
| Todd ,Rutecki | Parents Association for Rensselaer | My name is Todd Rutecki. I am writing you today with significant concerns about the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. I write as founder of a parents group called Parents Association for Rensselaer, or PARK, which is an environmentally conscious group grounded in logistical reality and science. I am also a rowing coach who utilizes gas engines to keep athletes safe during practice on the Hudson River and a dad of 3, soon to be 4. My oldest son Boden has been diagnosed with Autism. PARK supports efforts to “go green” and clean up the environment and therefore I support some aspects of the Draft Scoping Plan. However, I worry we are rushing things beyond the scope of reason. As far as I can tell, a number of outstanding issues remain unanswered, such as: • Where does the electricity to fuel EVs come from? Is it fully clean? • Can the grid support a tens of millions of EVs coming online within just eight years? • Is the technology behind EVs good for the environment, considering the current dirty production of batteries? • Who will pay the hundreds of billions of dollars required to implement the Draft Scoping Plan? Those are just a few unanswered questions. I’m also trying to figure out how, as a rowing coach, I am supposed to ride along with my athletes in an electric boat! Do electric boats have the power to fight strong currents like those in the Hudson River? What happens if a boat’s battery dies in the middle of the Hudson? I strongly urge you to reject the current Draft Scoping Plan. We need a realistic plan without so many unanswered questions. | |
| Jeff,Olson | The Third Mode | PLEASE include walking, bicycling and micromobility in the Draft Scoping Plan. For the energy used by one electric car, more than 100 people can ride electric bikes, scooters and other devices. This is how we can work towards climate equity. The more people we have walking, biking and using micromobility, the better our chances will be to meet our climate goals. These are real, cost effective and climate friendly solutions that can be implemented quickly in NY state - but only if they are given appropriate priority in the Climate Action Plan. | |
| Himani,Gupta | Trinity Consultants | On behalf of Central Boiler, Inc. (Central Boiler), the leading manufacturer of outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters in the US, Trinity Consultants Inc. (Trinity) submits attached comments to the New York State Climate Action Council (Council) in regard to the Council’s Draft Scoping Plan published on December 30, 2021. | |
| Himani,Gupta | Trinity Consultants | On behalf of Central Boiler, Inc. (Central Boiler), the leading manufacturer of outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters in the US, Trinity Consultants Inc. (Trinity) submits attached comments to the New York State Climate Action Council (Council) in regard to the Council’s Draft Scoping Plan published on December 30, 2021. | |
| Didi,Barrett | NYS Assembly | Please see attached file. | |
| Kathryn,Anderson | Artisan Pages Publishin | We cannot go all electric in NY. Electricity takes oil coal, and gas to run. This will break the grid and many older homeowners cannot afford to go all electric. If this is done we too will have brown outs like California. | |
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Edward Borkowski,Borkowski | This scoping plan ignores president Obama's plan to use " all sources of energy to transition to a net zero emissions future." This plan will cause more people to leave and less to stay in the state. The time table is VERY short and does not even address Cryto mining operations which uses great amounts of energy. This plan also will cause property values to drop due to no one wanting to move into the state with these freedom killing mandates. The increase cost of agriculture and food production will cause even more food being produced outside the state of New York. This will cause more emissions to bring food into the state. Transition historically has always involved systems and technology which made life easier and better. This plan causes pain with no immediate benefit. THE TIME TABLE MUST BE EXTENDED | ||
| Sam,Jasinski | Borrego | ||
| Kathryb,Applegate | Having spoken to those working in the energy industry, it is obvious that the timeline for transitioning out of oil/gas is dramatically understated. Our infrastructure and economy is no where near where it needs to be to make these drastic leaps into these lesser energy sources. Furthermore, the technology that runs these wind and solar farms are no better and at times worse for our environment than our current methods. How well did fracking work out? Not well at all as natural gas is quickly being phased out as a means to derive energy. The wind and solar farms also are being placed in NY’s beautiful rural areas which will now be marred by ugly and destructive turbines and takes away valuable farm lands. Please do more research before blindly ruining our state. | ||
| Aileen,Martin | As a resident on the edge of the Adirondack Park, I support eliminating power plants fueled by wood chips. There is such a power plant at Fort Drum. We see the trees being hauled in on an hourly basis. We are deforesting the Adirondacks as we speak. This happened in the last century when there was a high demand for paper and the damage is evident today. We cannot allow this to happen again at a time when the Earth so desperately needs trees - healthy deciduous trees. Thank you for your attention to this. Aileen Martin Watertown, NY | ||
| John,Bender | June 29, 2022 NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Comments NYSERDA 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Dear Members of the Climate Action Council: As a senior citizen in rural New York – I live in Vestal – I am writing to you today to voice my concerns over the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. The Plan proposes a “one size fits all” pathway to reducing emissions that greatly disadvantages New Yorkers upstate. For example, I don’t live on or near a bus line. I have to drive my car to get to my appointments, get my groceries and medicine. Now, my car is nothing special. Like me, it’s getting a little old in years. It’s still reliable, but I imagine I will need a new one in a few years. Under the Draft Scoping Plan, I won’t be able to purchase an affordable, used gas-powered vehicle. Instead, I’ll have to spring even more money for a new EV that I probably can’t afford. According to Car and Driver, consumers might pay between $7,000 and $18,000 more upfront for a compact EV over a gas powered model, like a Hyundai Kona. Ask yourself if this makes sense for rural seniors on fixed incomes. I’m not alone in this concern. Many of my friends and neighbors are wondering about the same things I am. How are we going to afford this? Where are they going to put charging stations in rural communities? Please reject this Draft Scoping Plan. The needs of upstate and downstate New Yorkers are vastly different, and this Plan treats them the same. Thank you, John Bender | ||
| Michael,Valero | Local 3 IBEW | The Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure good union jobs aren't just lost, but there is actual growth and expansion of good-paying, union jobs in the industries most related to the climate crisis. The Draft Scoping Plan needs to have a realistic timeline for the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, using all options available for power generation. And finally, the Draft Scoping Plan needs to address the impacts and costs of the Plan on all NYS residents. | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduit s 1& 2 Year 1960 | Natural Gas Cost $194, electricity cost $1296 for equivalent energy. 221CCF/month = 6480KWh equivalent energy. See attachment, we need natural gas. | |
| Sean,Leonard | IBEW LOCAL UNION #3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Sean Leonard and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Baldwin Harbor , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Sean Leonard | |
| Frank,Leonard | IBEW LOCAL UNION #3 | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Frank Leonard and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Baldwin Harbor , NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, F Leonard | |
| Sandy,Misiewicz | Capital District Transportation Commit tee | The Capital District Transportation Committee appreciates the opportunity to submit comment. We have sent a letter via USPS in addition to the attached comment letter. Please feel free to contact us. | |
| Mike,Dee | (1) Whether or not CO2 is a problem, the simple fact is that Fossil Fuels will run out at some time. They are a finite resource. (2) Renewables will NEVER be capable of generating enough baseload or auxiliary power to meet our needs. (3) Actual life of renewables is typically about 10-15 years (at best), and then requires complete overhaul or replacement of active components. This is prohibitively expensive. (4) Even IPCC notes that all the renewables we put into place will have NO effect on Global Temperatures by the year 2100. By then Fossil Fuels WILL be running out, so CO2 is still NOT an issue. (5) By SQUANDERING our resources on Wind and Solar, we are neglecting investment in the ONLY energy source capable of meeting our needs in the future - Nuclear. The OPPORTUNITY COST of building Wind and Solar Farms in the short term will destroy our ability to meet future energy needs. Total waste of financial and human capital. (6) By SUBSIDIZING Wind and Solar, the GOVERNMENT is HIDING the true costs of Wind and Solar behind the BIGGEST CORPORATE WELFARE CRONY CAPITALIST plans in the history of the world. (7) Who will be left holding the bag for the cleanup after those Lake Erie Windmills eventually crumble into the lake? Or when all those solar farms leave toxic metals all over the ground and render thousands of acres useless? (8) Do you really care, or are you just identifying arguments that you will have to deflect? (9) Do you realize how much effort has gone into reverse engineering the actual climate data to fit the narrative? | ||
| Michael,Bailey | I strongly support more ambitious actions to try to prevent the worst of climate change...think big! 1. General summary pages would be helpful: both a timeline of expected actions & commitments and a summary of the financial impacts of actions (and inactions) on jobs, prices, taxes, etc. 2. Expand plans for "Displaced Worker" support beyond "Current and formerly employed power plant workers" (7.3, pg 43) to include all fossil fuel related workers in auto mechanics, oil & propane delivery, and ancillary support fields. 3. According to the Jobs Study highlights (pg 50) "Overall employment in the four primary sectors increase by at least 189,000 jobs from 2019 to 2030" -- a substantial net increase in workers. Please address where those people are expected to come from, how they will be recruited & trained, and the expected impact on housing availability, etc. 4. In Transportation, Sect. 11.1 State of the Sector, references to ZEV registrations are inconsistent: - Pg 94: "One half of one percent of the over 9 million registered LDVs in NY were ZEVs" (~45,000) - Pg 98: "There are currently over 80,000 EVs on the road in the State" - Pg 102: "Sales of light-duty ZEVs have increase and in 2021 account for...about 1% of all LDVs on the road" 5. What is the financial impact of "Vision for 2030" (pg 95) "By 2030 nearly 100% of LDV sales and 40% or more of MHD vehicle sales must be ZEVs" -- What impact (annually & cumulatively) on gasoline prices, gas taxes, reduced mech. services & parts for ICE vehicles, and greater demand for tires for ZEVs through 2050? 6. In Chap 12, Buildings, key sector strategies (pg 125) acknowledge, "Given the increased frequency of extreme weather events...it is critical to consider & manage risks to resilience..." What is the projected cost and breakeven for burying power lines, possibly by utilizing existing underground gas lines? 7. The "Zero emissions standards (pg 129) need to be moved up (more ambition) Not enough space for my comments | ||
| Robert,Goszewski | Such a sweeping restriction on the freedoms of individuals to decide on how to most efficiently and economically decide on their own how to choose the type of fuel is troubling. This is an example of government micro-managing the lives of its' citizens. Such restrictions will adversely affect those who are least likely to afford such draconian measures the most. I am not opposed to protecting our environment, however, restricting all access to readily available services that have been a large part of our society for a very long time is short sighted and irresponsible. This policy looks like political grandstanding to continue a power stranglehold of government and establish more governmental control of its citizens which goes against the fundamental principles which this country was founded upon. It is not the government's place to be its citizen's parents telling us what we should and should not do. This is a bad policy and a simplistic, shortsighted attempt to solve a complex issue. We do not know the adverse effects such a policy will have on our environment in limiting the variety of energy sources available for use and only relying on select ones. This policy is extremely irresponsible for our government to adopt. As alternate energy sources become more available and cost effective, dependance on current sources will naturally decrease on their own over time without government restriction. | ||
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompki ns County | Focusing on water resources, it is positive to see that riparian buffers are noted for increased investment and conservation in Ag & Forestry, Land Use, Adaptation and Resilience. Also, Chapter 15 notes how soil health BMPs and agroforestry improve water quality and food resilience - these are critical parts of climate adaptation and water resource management. There is, however, a lack of attention on water resources overall. We searched for key terms (water, riparian, algal, eutrophication, flood, storm) throughout the plan and they do not appear often if at all. The draft scoping plan seems to treat water as an extension of land. It’s more than that, it’s an ecological function and vital resource of its own and is important and should not be left out. There is a need to address stormwater management and issues of water quantity (i.e. water supply aquifers, rivers, and lakes) and quality (i.e. harmful algal blooms, hotter streams and lakes) as landscape-scale issues. These are issues that require focused goals in themselves and that overlap with goals for emissions and food security, given the food-water-energy nexus. To add to the Public Health section, there is a growing body of evidence about anxiety and PTSD-like effects of severe weather events such as flooding (special consideration should be given to marginal, often low-lying, flood-prone areas where mobile homes are commonly placed)(https://4-h.org/about/research/teen-environmental-impact-survey; https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/mental-health-climate-change.pdf). Or places in NY State that may (like New Orleans) be totally dependent on upstream dams or levvies to protect them, making them extremely vulnerable to 100-year flooding events, etc, potentially causing cross-contamination of drinking wells and septic systems + large variety of other potential contaminants (agricultural chemicals, petro-chemicals, etc). | |
| Susan,DuBois | I appreciate the scoping plan's emphasis on training and apprenticeships for work in the energy sector as part of a just transition, as well as the mention of providing recognition for early action (in section 7.3). The recently-passed utility thermal energy network and jobs act (S.9422/A.10493) is a good example of what can be done in incorporating labor requirements and the interests of union members while developing a field of work that may result in significant shifts away from fossil fuels. | ||
| Deb,Peck-Kelleher | Alliance for Clean Energy New York | File Uploaded | |
| Brock,Gibian | Ecogy Energy | ||
| Kerri,Kirschbaum | Con Edison & NRDC | Con Edison and the NRDC submit joint comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you! | |
| Patrick and Paula,Britzzalaro | I am against New York State telling homeowners (like myself) how to run my private affairs in MY HOME!!..This is a complete Socialistic Government Overreach to USA citizens such as myself and my family!!!....Unless the governor of New York is willing to pay for a total green energy overhaul in my home and buy me a Brand New electric car with tax givebacks to maintain it......STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS AND LIFE!!!!!....This is just another Socialist/Communist control of THE far left wing arm of the democratic party.. JUST LIKE ABORTION...STOP TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!!......THIS STATE HAS LOST 335,000 NY CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES SINCE THE CUOMO/HOUCHUL PERIOD, ALONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE $34 BILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES LEFT ALSO!!!!.......ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!! | ||
| robert,wood | I oppose these pending changes that are proposed by the state of New York. The measures are far too over-reaching and the impact to families in this state are too extreme. The average family cannot afford to buy an electric car. We can afford to go "green" so quickly. Consumers in this state should not be prohibited from buying appliances or automobiles of their own choice. Natural gas appliances carry a far lower cost to operate versus the same electric appliances. We cannot meet our current and future energy needs with renewables alone. I favor open exploration and use of our natural resources to provide energy needs. In regards to automobiles - I would favor more government support and assistance in the further development of HYBRID Cars that can serve as an acceptable bridge towards electric cars. We should try to exploit the combustion engine as far as we can. | ||
| Andrew ,Avery | New York State County Highway Superintendents Association (NYSCHSA) | ||
| Susan,Holland | Historic Ithaca | 1) Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, increasing to 80% by 2030. ? Require a per ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, while also expanding policies and programs to encourage individual and large-scale reuse of building materials. ? Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot programs. ? Develop public informational resources working in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (state agencies, local governments, contractors, property owners). ? Support local governments to adopt requirements that all sites slated for full removal must be deconstructed rather than demolished by 2026. 2) Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials. ? Adopt codes for new construction that enable the incorporation of reused materials. ? Support workforce training of green jobs, with deconstruction as an important component. ? Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. ? Enact a production tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into intermediate products to locate facilities in New York. ? Provide financial support to municipalities/counties for the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges. 3) Develop plans to divert concrete and asphalt, CCD’s two largest components, from waste streams. ? Require local governments, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to use a paving base of 100 percent recycled asphalt and concrete, and to encourage on-site street recycling that includes recycled aggregate. ? Establish an environmentally sound plan for waste resulting from the demolition of New York’s interstate highways. ? Support research, facilities, and programs that focus on the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt shingles, gypsum (drywall) and masonry. | |
| Susan,DuBois | New York State should create strong incentives for locating photovoltaic solar electric facilities on already-developed land or buildings rather than on agricultural land of forest land. These incentives could be both financial and regulatory. As with wind power, the way in which solar farms are built and their locations are important in limiting their adverse environmental effects. Although such facilities are valuable in reducing fossil fuel use, no form of energy generation is without its impacts. Please take into consideration the research that is being done by Hudsonia on mitigating impacts of solar farms. In order to make use of intermittent electric sources like solar and wind, there will need to be a major effort to develop electric storage. This might involve more storage than the quantity mentioned in the scoping plan although I do not have any figures on this. New York State should encourage research and development regarding a variety of methods of energy storage, not just batteries. The research should include evaluation of the positive and negative environmental and economic impacts of the technologies, in addition to their technical aspects. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of a project includes looking at the impacts themselves, alternatives that reduce the impact, and mitigation of impacts that cannot be avoided. The need for a project is generally balanced against the impacts. One area of electric use that is currently highly controversial is proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining. This activity uses ridiculously large amounts of electricity at a time when the state’s electric demand will be increasing during conversion of our energy system away from fossil fuels. It produces little if any social benefit and there are good reasons to believe is actually is a social and economic hazard. This will require attention, whether under the recent moratorium legislation or otherwise. | ||
| Adam,Flint | Network for a Sustainable Tomorrow | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the CAC: In the judgment of the 3600 members of 350Brooklyn, the draft Scoping Plan’s emphasis on recommending ways in which landfill usage could be reduced is admirable, but we think it could go further. As the Plan notes, 70% of the material that municipal waste systems handle are discarded products and packaging. The Plan describes the many programs already in place to handle particularly toxic waste, such as batteries, and the Extended Producer Responsibility policies that require manufacturers of goods, such as computers, to handle their end-of-life disposal appropriately. It suggests some additional areas for EPR, which we support. The Plan offers a range of strategies to reduce municipal waste, such as a fee on waste, which would simultaneously raise money for alternatives, which we also support. The Plan mentions reducing single use plastics used in stores and expanding container deposits, and here’s a place where we think the Plan could go further. A recent study found that merely 5% of plastic in the US is recycled, an appalling low number. Container deposits should be raised to 10 cents, and should be applied to all single use containers, particularly bottled water. Non-deposit drinks like water, energy drinks, juices, and teas form a significant part of our plastic waste and throwing them away should be discouraged. In addition, the huge expansion of package delivery use during the pandemic not only brings more traffic but has generated a correspondingly huge increase in cardboard and other packaging. While there is a market for recycling paper products, it’s not endless. Reducing this at the source is worth figuring out. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim | |
| David,McConnell | These UBER and transport helicopters that are flying low over Brooklyn neighborhoods need to re-route over the water. They are TOO LOW and TOO LOUD. They disrupt schools, wildlife and citizens. Stop the Chop! | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | While the Plan appropriately stresses the value of diverting organic waste from landfills and incinerators, the Climate Action Council should lay out a clear timeline by which this must be accomplished. To the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn commends the CAC for a draft Scoping Plan that appropriately recognizes that a significant opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions stemming from waste is to convert all yard and inedible food waste to compost. . Almost a quarter of municipal solid waste consists of such organic material. The decay of this material is the primary reason why landfills play such a large role in emissions from waste, as organic decomposition generates methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a twenty year span. The Plan recommends that all cities and towns require the separation of organic waste, and ban all of it from landfills and incinerators. With each New Yorker generating 1,850 pounds of waste per year, the Plan recommends a fee on waste that would help fund the development of composting infrastructure. The Plan also recognizes that removing organic material from the waste stream would reduce the traffic to and from waste transfer stations, thus reducing this burden on environmental justice communities. And the Plan recommends state funding to assist in the expansion of composting infrastructure. We support these recommendations, as the goals of organic diversion and composting are a necessary step if New York State is to reach the goals of the CLCPA. However, the Plan would be strengthened by recommending timelines for cities and towns to reach these goals of organic diversion and composting infrastructure. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Erin,McGrath | Audubon New York | Attached, please find Audubon New York's comments on the CLCPA Draft Scoping Plan. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Erin McGrath, Senior Policy Manager for Audubon New York, at ---------- or ------------. | |
| Kerri,Kirschbaum | Con Edison & Orange and Rockland | Con Edison and O&R respectfully submit comments on the draft Scoping Plan. Thank you! | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn ask that the final Scoping Plan categorically recommend an end to all garbage incineration in New York State. While the Plan recommends the diversion of yard and food waste from incinerators, this is part of its focus on separating organic materials from the general waste stream and directing them to composting facilities. The Plan does not address incinerators per se. Yet burning of any kind produces carbon dioxide, and burning mixed materials releases many other gasses into the air. Incineration both contributes to global warming and to local air pollution. And incinerators are virtually always located in low-income rural communities and in communities of color. Incineration is therefore an environmental justice issue. There should be no place for incinerating waste in New York State. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim 350Brooklyn | |
| Laura ,Harper | This plan is ridiculous Changing from gas , restrictions to new homes , new buildings, changing to electric cars. Geothermal heating. These are all too agressive goals with unacceptable price tags unfairly effecting average families who cannot afford them. No gas appliances!!!! No gas cars!!!!! All because Biden won’t mine the energy we have!!! Other energy sources need to be available to people before these changes are implemented. | ||
| Bruce,Geiger | Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association (LIGRA) | ||
| Kirsten,Menking | I really appreciate all the good work that has gone into developing this plan. New York has been a leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but we still have a long way to go to achieve the carbon neutrality that we need in order to avoid massive disruptions to Earth's climate system. One thing that I would like to bring to the attention to those drafting this plan is that there is presently an idiotic barrier to expansion of solar energy use by some households who were early adopters of the technology, and I would love to see this barrier addressed. I was an early adopter of rooftop photovoltaics in New York, leasing a solar panel system from Solar City (now owned by Tesla) 8 years ago. Because of the amount of shade cast by trees in my yard, I was informed that the panels would only be able to offset about 50% of my household electrical consumption, and that has proven to be correct. Earlier this year, I sought to buy panels in a community solar farm to make up the difference only to be told that it is NY state law that I am not allowed to have solar panels in two places. Had I known that this would be a problem, I might have waited and simply bought into a solar farm rather than getting panels on my house. I see no good reason why the state should prohibit me from generating 100% of my electricity via solar energy, and it is very frustrating that this is the case. I feel that I am being punished for being an early adopter of a trend that we must continue to avert climate catastrophe. I would like to see NY law changed to ensure that we maximize our use of renewable energy in the state. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | The 3600 members of 350 Brooklyn would like to commend the CAC for these aspects of the chapter on Waste: The Plan appropriately recommends actions to prevent the leakage of greenhouse gasses from landfills and anaerobic digesters, describing them as “obvious and well-documented.” While municipal landfills throughout New York State have methane collections systems in place, the Plan recognizes that methane from decomposing organic material still seeps through caps or escapes during the active dumping of mixed waste. While recommendations elsewhere to ban organic waste from landfills will eventually solve this problem, decades of organic waste dumping mean that landfills will continue to generate methane for a long time. Moreover, anaerobic digesters, if not properly managed, can also leak methane. The Plan offers sensible recommendations for implementing more effective systems, for maintenance and monitoring, and for research, and we support these recommendations. The Plan appropriately recognizes the significance of capturing fugitive emissions from refrigerants and we strongly support its recommendations for actions that would address this problem effectively. While the 1987 Montreal Protocol banned the production of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants that depleted the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, these were replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs.) While HFC’s do not degrade ozone, they have extremely high global warming potential. A molecule of an HFC can trap as much as 13,900 times compared with a molecule of CO2. And while the production of CFC’s have been banned, their use and resale on the secondary market have not. The Plan recommends a number of regulatory steps that the Department of Environmental Conservation can take to ensure that end-of-life disposal of refrigerators, air conditioners, HVAC systems, and the like, would prevent FCs or CFCs from escaping into the atmosphere. We strongly support such action. Sara S. Gronim, Co-Lead | |
| Robert,Jensen | Agreenability | In reviewing the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan, dated December 30, 2021, I am in full agreement that a strategy for our building stock needs to be of both reducing heating and cooling loads while also electrifying heating, cooling and the production of Domestic Hot Water (DHW) using heat pumps. Heat pumps are both highly efficient and a mature technology in use for more than four decades. They are the best and least expensive choice in providing both space and water heating in buildings. However, I disagree with pursuing the substitution of hydrogen for methane, the main component of natural gas (NG). NG is delivered in great quantities via an expansive pipe network to homes and business across the state for heating and hot water purposes. Green Hydrogen, unlike methane formed by free natural processes, is manufactured using electricity that will directly compete with other all-electric, emissions-free technologies, such as heat pumps and electric vehicles (EVs). It will also consume dollars in research and implementation costs that would be better disbursed elsewhere. There are some applications for hydrogen that should and/or need to be contemplated, but these should be limited to processes where electricity does not offer a solution. Substituting hydrogen for methane to provide heat energy in our buildings and homes will be very inefficient and expensive. It will consume about 5 times more electricity than heat pumps, delaying carbon neutrality and will therefore be counterproductive to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requirements to cut greenhouse gas emissions. | |
| Matt,Haynie | POET, LLC | Attached please find POET, LLC's comments on the Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you. | |
| Susan,Maresca | We should be focused on placing solar and wind arrays in already developed areas instead of taking more green space over. I think it is important to incentivize rooftop solar power installations on new large buildings, especially the storage and warehouse facilities. Similarly, there is a lot of opportunity to add solar canopies in parking lots. If we can get double duty in our developed areas, it would help open space conservation. | ||
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompki ns County | Cornell Cooperative Extension-Tompkins County’s Environment Program strongly supports the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan and its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate disruption. We offer the following comments on the Economy-Wide Strategies, attached. | |
| Lacey ,Galen | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompki ns County | Cornell Cooperative Extension-Tompkins County’s Environment Program strongly supports the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan and its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate disruption, as well as the recognition of the public health effects of fossil fuels and benefits to public health from their reduction. We offer the following comments on Chapter 8: Public Health, attached. | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | I have been following the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) process since it started. I used information published on my blog to submit 26 comments on various aspects of the Draft Scoping Plan since the comment period opened. This comment is an executive summary of the comments I submitted that highlights the most important points that I think the members of the Climate Action Council should know about the Draft Plan. I summarize the most important points in this section and then provide a summary of all the comments that I submitted with links to the actual comments. Given the breadth and scope of the Climate Act transition and the Draft Scoping Plan it is unreasonable to expect that any Council member could devote enough time to evaluating it to understand the substantive nuances that have not been forthcoming from the authors of the Integration Analysis or the leadership of the Climate Action Council. | |
| Carlos,Gavilondo | Utility Consultation Group | ||
| Robert,Conway | Please see the attached uploaded file for my comments. Thank you. | ||
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompki ns County | Cornell Cooperative Extension-Tompkins County’s Environment Program strongly supports the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan and its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate disruption. We offer the following comments on Chapter 12: Buildings, attached. | |
| Elizabeth,Stein | Environmental Defense Fund | Environmental Defense Fund's comments on the Draft Scoping Plan are attached in PDF form. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. | |
| melissa,Frarine | The plan looks hopeless to me. There is no way wind and solar can ever power New York. 15,000MW of storage wouldn't even get through one cold, calm January night. But I looked a little farther and found the NYSERDA Power grid study. It says: "Further studies will be required to more completely understand the generation and storage technology options that will be needed after 2035 to cost-effectively reduce emissions to zero by 2040, and the extent of how these technologies will impact grid investment needs. The Zero Emissions Study projects that emissions could be eliminated fully with approximately 20,000 MW of backstop thermal generation that is fueled with landfill gas, bio gas, or other renewable natural gas." 20,000 MW is about how much fossil fuel thermal generation the state has now. Please give us a real proposal with real costs so the voters of the state can put a stop to this. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | This comment reviews information made available in May describing the cost methodologies. I have made the point in many of my comments that I believe the Integration Analysis documentation should describe all the control measures proposed, provide references for the assumptions used, supply the expected costs for those measures and list the expected emission reductions for the Reference Case, the Advisory Panel scenario and the three mitigation scenarios. This documentation describes the calculation methodology but little else. I note that electrification of home heating is dependent upon building shell improvements. This recently provided documentation does not provide sufficient information to understand how typical homeowners will be affected by that control measure. Providing net system costs relative to the Reference Case is not sufficient because stakeholders don’t know the total costs. | |
| Mandy,Garrahan | |||
| Allison,Scanlon | Please stop this green plan. Please stop. This is going to kill businesses. This is going to be unaffordable for NY households. Do not ram this down our throats when we don't want it. Right now people can't afford to feed their families and put gas in their cars. Democrats have ruined our economy and this plan is going to finish us off. You work for us, so please get back to listening to us and stop this green plan now. Thank you. | ||
| Eileen,Stone | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential (sightseeing and commuter) helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan. Helicopters are significant air pollution contributors. Each helicopter produces about 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, emits particulate air pollution and some still burn leaded fuel. Helicopter noise pollution is also an environmental health threat, with proven deleterious effects on physical and mental health. | ||
| Danielle,Manley | Urban Green Council | Attached please find comments on behalf of Urban Green Council to the Climate Action Council on its Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Mary T. ,Finneran | While this is a bit of a reiteration of my comments in Albany this spring, considering the denial of the air permit for the Greenidge Natural Gas Power Plant June 30th (thank you DEC), I believe some further comments are not out of order. There is so little in the draft document about Proof of Work (PoW) cryptocurrency use to be scary. People are often comparing electricity use of Bitcoin and other PoW cryptocurrencies to that used by other countries. Latest count for Bitcoin global terra watt hour (TWH) use is about 150. In 2020, NYS, which ranks in energy use with several large countries TWH use was 132. Of course considering the recent use from crypto mining in the state this has probably increased, but it would seem that Bitcoin alone globally uses more TWH than NYS does as a whole annually. It is untenable that this extreme use of energy with little public benefit can be allowed; if renewable sources are used it would take the finite renewable sources from the public perpetuating the use of fossil fuels for heat and electrical generation. I could find no mention of E waste from cryptocurrency considering how quickly the thousands of computers are burned out (1.5 to 4) this also has to be addressed. Thank you for your diligence. | ||
| Jane,Sullivan | I am frustrated by the NYS leadership on this entire proposal. Moving to 100% electric is a terrible idea. The main tenant behind this is to improve the environment not only in the state but nationally and globally. But where does all this electric power come from? Natural gas and coal. And how are the batteries made? By stripping the natural resources world wide (particularly in the rain forest region). And where are these COSTLY batteries going when they are no longer useful? With toxic chemicals and pollutants, they will be difficult if not impossible to recycle. Difficult equals costly. People should remain allowed to have a choice in how they power and heat and cool their homes and place business. It isn't just a few extra cents on the dollar. Major renovations will need to be made to make such a transition, and those will be costly. Given the current state of affairs, I suspect the cost will be further driven up by the principles of supply and demand; There will not be enough supply to meet the demand. When looking at businesses, this cost will be passed on to the consumer, who will already be heavily burdened with trying to make the same changes in their personal homes. And what will this do to school taxes when every school is looking to make these changes. I don't believe for one instance that state aid can offset the school taxpayer's burden...and even if it does, it just means the state will charge more in taxes elsewhere. Electric vehicles are not powerful enough to traverse a Buffalo winter in the hills of the southern tier. We often lose power (electric) during winter storms and the generator is...you got it: natural gas. It is simply too much, too fast and will cause tremendous hardship on the majority of stakeholders. Government isn't meant to take away choice. I thought NYS understood this when they did not ban abortion when the Roe-v-Wade was overturned, so why are you taking away this choice? I am going to have to move out of the state! | ||
| Noelle,Connolly | |||
| Billii,Roberti | Green Choices Consulting | I have been interested in all things green for at least two decades. I did a green gut rehab of my house and expanded the livable floor space, improved the window envelope, installed ENERGY STAR® appliances, rooftop solar and a geothermal heat pump. I later added a new bedroom and an irrigation system to my property. Last year we bought a Tesla and started charging it from home. I live in LIPA territory, with the second highest electric rates in the state. My combined utility costs in 2021 have almost increased to match what they were in 2009, before we started construction and before we had air conditioning. Now, not many people will go to that kind of trouble. But they can follow one or more suggestions in your excellent scoping plan. I have only a few reservations about it not going far enough in some initiatives and too far when it comes to hydrogen gas. I will address these concerns below. The biggest issue with the plan is that it does not prepare people for decarbonizing existing buildings and building new ones all-electric. As a result, the gas utilities have put on an expensive and massive disinformation plan to build public sentiment against it. We have no time to lose in shifting to a clean energy economy. The UN IPCC reports and others baldly state the urgency. We know what we need to do. But the general public treats these dire reports as if it were Chicken Little ravings. I believe the science making these predictions is sound. The plan must address public outreach in a big way. As soon as possible, the CAC should launch a major, sustained statewide public education and information campaign to support climate-friendly choices by consumers for building improvements and equipment. This is especially important if this plan is changed in any major way. I support the following recommendations in the CAC draft scoping plan and hope they are carried into the final plan: (See attachment) | |
| Justin ,Hester | Local Union #3 | ||
| Alexa,Avilés | New York City Council District 38 | New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is among the most ambitious climate laws in the world. I am proud our state is leading the way by calling for 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, and 85% by 2050. We must keep in mind that with such an urgent and aggressive goal ahead of us, our state needs a bold, creative, and unwavering vision to guide our path forward. When the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was passed in 2019, the bill was lauded for centering equity and climate justice. I am here today to reiterate that we cannot allow Black, Brown, and climate-impacted communities across our state to be left behind. We have seen how environmental burdens have impacted the health and well-being our neighbors. Now, we have the opportunity to build new structures and a more just future by funding the CLCPA. When we invest in directly-impacted communities, we can right past wrongs and strengthen our resolve to carry out this transition. I want to stress the need for our state to begin a just transition away from fossil fuels without delay. That means our state’s Climate Action Plan must choose the most ambitious emissions reductions scenario without extending the lifespan of fossil fuel infrastructure. There is room for this plan to lead the way toward rapidly decarbonizing our transportation system, not only making our cities and neighborhoods more walkable, but increasing access to our existing public transit systems. This plan must implement bold food policy. There is room in this plan for all of our best ideas, including a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, all-electric new construction, and retrofits that will make our homes safer and better places to live. It will take courage and vision to ensure the health of all New Yorkers for generations to come. I urge you to show your resolve and guarantee our state’s rapid transition off away from fossil fuels, for the benefit of all our communities. | |
| William,Thomas | Open New York | Open New York is a grassroots group advocating for abundant homes and lower rent. We believe in housing for all and housing of all types. That means we support more social housing, government subsidized housing, and market rate housing. One of the key tenets that underlie our activism is our firm belief that housing policy is climate policy. From our perspective, one of the most important things that New York City can do to fight climate change is make New Yorkers’ low-carbon lifestyle available to more people. New Yorkers’ annual greenhouse gas emissions are roughly a third of the US average. We acknowledge multiple important pathways by which housing impacts emissions: first, through buildings' own energy usage, but also secondly, by dictating how many people live where. Housing policy influences travel patterns and transportation emissions, and New York City’s density and reliance on low-carbon transportation enable a low-carbon lifestyle by default. As such, many current regulatory practices, enshrined in zoning laws, planning processes, and other policies that limit the construction of new housing in municipalities throughout New York State, have not only caused a dire housing shortage and encouraged climate-destroying sprawl, but actively prevented climate-saving densification in a manner wholly incompatible with the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Open New York is supportive of the CLCPA, the work of the Climate Action Council, and the approaches outlined in the Draft Scoping Plan. The attention to detail in the analysis, the breadth of the strategies outlined, and the dedication to the needs of disadvantaged communities are laudable. The purpose of our attached comments is to strengthen and improve the Scoping Plan. | |
| Candis,Sunderland | Dutchess County Environmental Mana gement Council | We at the Dutchess County Environmental Management Council advise the County Legislature and CACs, who advise their local governments, on issues affecting environmental quality and preservation. We are commenting on LU5. Mapping, Research, Planning, and Assistance page 288 regarding assistance of local governments to create land-use policies. We support the recommendation that Conservation Advisory Commissions and Environmental Managements Councils be funded because these volunteer groups have an important and primary role in preserving open space including producing natural resource inventories. These groups are integral to community preservation plans, help protect important natural resources such as clean air and water with an eye toward resilience. The members are knowledgeable and dedicated volunteers are often provided no funding for their work. Restoration of funding for these organizations would enable this valuable asset to meet the challenges of climate change. The scoping document gets it right. | |
| Raymond,Albrecht | Raymond J Albrecht LLC | ||
| Joe,Wadsworth | Vitol Inc. | ||
| Lenhart,Saner | Dogwood Farm | I am a Yates County farmer using sustainable farming practices, including renewable energy (solar and geothermal) and all energy efficient machinery. I support the goals for the New York State draft scoping plan on climate change. I hope a final draft is passed into law and effectively implemented. Climate change cannot be ignored. We must act effectively to stop climate change. Thank you. Lenhart Saner | |
| Tim,Head | This is the most foolish and progressively reckless legislation I have seen come out of Albany in my lifetime. How about we focus on real issues like the economy, education etc. rather than supporting Albany's continuing attack on the rural and middle class to pander to NYC voters. Pandering to make progressives have happy feelings. Our environment is healthier now than it was through out the 80s and 90s. Focus on real policy. Not fantasy. NYS has seen the largest population decline of any state. So let's push all the rest of the tax payers out and the rest will be left here to enjoy the cesspool Albany and down state politicians have created. VOTE NO TO ALL!!! | ||
| Mark,Lessans | Johnson Controls | Please see attached. | |
| Itamar,Moses | There is no more urgent issue facing New Yorkers than action on climate change because there is no more urgent issue facing the planet. And because the forces arrayed against climate action are the same forces that stand in the way of so much necessary progress -- those that value profit over all other considerations; those that either cynically or blindly choose to ignore what the most reliable experts in the fields of science and medicine have to tell us; those who manipulate fears in order to retain power; those who only value "freedom" when it refers to the freedom to exploit and plunder, not freedom *from* these things -- fighting on this issue will inevitably move the needle on many of the other urgent issues facing us. We cannot continue to for the false dichotomy that says we must choose between a healthy economy and healthy human beings. These goals are in fact interdependent and this plan is a step towards reaching it. | ||
| George,Povall | All Our Energy | ||
| James,Phillips | I am apposed. This is land of the free - that means free to choose to have natural gas, or not to be a part of this plan. Government t has no place to mandate the terms of this plan over its citizens. No. Scrap this. James Phillips | ||
| Tom,Cunningham | You start this section with the following....Protecting our State's natural resources and creating healthier places to live, work, and play. This is great and I agree that this is important but so is the ability to afford to live in New York and have an infrastructure that will serve all residents. Please consider affordability and reliability in your plan. The folks involved in this process, except those making comments, all have a vested interest in making things more expensive and making us rely on them to an even greater extent than we do now to keep the lights on. Get to work but it does not need to be done tomorrow if that is going to force folks to leave the state. | ||
| Kierstin,Turnock | Eastman Chemical Co. | ||
| Deborah,Koop | Brookside Farm | I am a Yates County farmer and conservationist. We farm profitably using NOFA-NY Organic farming methods and renewable energy. I support the goals eof the New York State Draft Scoping plan on Climate Change. We must take effective action NOW to fight climate change. Thank you. Deborah Koop | |
| Audrey,Friedrichsen | Scenic Hudson, Inc. | ||
| Mohsana ,Akter | New York Independent System Operat or Inc. | Please find the attached comments of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) on the New York State Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan | |
| Mark,Sclafani | Central Hudson Gas & Electric | Attached are the comments of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation | |
| Christopher,Torell | |||
| Patrick,Ryan | Ulster County | ||
| Carmina ,D’Angelo | CAC | I’m writing to support funding for the Climate Action Plan to fund the city of Peekskill Conservation Advisory Council. The money would assist with training, resources, clerical, marketing and public outreach. Thank you! | |
| Richard,M Blemel | At this time I an totally opposed to the intended legislation. Those in rural communities would suffer greatly under the mandated changes. We do not have the infrastructure in place and the technology is not advance enough to support such action. | ||
| Christopher,Perna | This plan is another example of massive overreach by the government into the lives of its citizens. New York can’t seem to learn from its mistakes. People are relocating out of NY due to the oppressive tax and regulatory conditions here. Instead of moderating the government’s behavior, this proposal illustrates that you are doubling down on the current course. The economy of this state will collapse as more and more people and companies choose friendlier and more affordable alternatives, i.e. Tennessee, Florida, Texas, etc. Very sad that our elected representatives are h--- bent on ruining this great state. There needs to be a serious reconsideration of the scope of this proposal. | ||
| Eric,Banford | The state of Maine encouraged the use of PFAS-laden sewage sludge 40 years ago, as a result the Maine state legislature is considering establishing a $100 million fund to compensate farmers whose land is now TOO CONTAMINATED TO FARM (tinyurl.com/ycn2y2hl). Yes, you read that correctly: farmland in Maine is now too contaminated to farm due to this practice. New York should never allow this devastating pollutant to be applied to our farm fields and crops. There are currently ten polluting trash incinerators in operation across NYS. Waste-to-energy incineration is the most inefficient, polluting, climate-destroying, and expensive way to generate energy and manage waste. These incinerators emit 1.7 times more greenhouse gasses compared to coal-fired power plants; and cost 4x more than solar and offshore wind energy. These incinerators are responsible for emitting PFAS 'forever' chemicals that persist in the environment and in our bodies. Studies show that PFAS affect human's cholesterol, hormones, and immune systems; and show a correlation between PFAS and certain types of cancers. Dirty, wasteful incineration like this needs to stop now. | ||
| Abigael,Welch | Sustainable Westchester | My name is Abigael Welch. I live in Pleasantville NY. We have no time to lose in shifting to a clean energy economy. I would like to echo remarks by Sustainable Westchester and New Yorkers for Clean Power and state the plan should initiate a managed transition from utility gas to clean heating and cooling in existing buildings to be completed by 2050, with an interim target of 2 million decarbonized buildings by 2030. I support the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendation to: -Develop a plan for a managed and equitable transition to clean heating and cooling systems that maintains affordable, safe, and reliable utility service and protects low- and moderate-income households from an undue burden in the transition. - Urge the Climate Action Council to include in the Scoping Plan the Gas Transition and Affordability Act (S.8198) to begin this process. To support households and businesses in this transition, urge the Climate Action Council to, as soon as possible, launch a major, sustained statewide public education and information campaign to support climate-friendly choices by consumers for building improvements and equipment The final scoping plan should go into more detail on how the Public Service Commission will be required to incorporate the CLCPA into utility rate cases so that we can plan for an orderly, equitable reduction in the fossil gas grid. Thank you for taking this into consideration. | |
| David,Mann | Oberon Fuels | ||
| Dakota,Casserly | St. Lawrence County Planning | See attached .pdf. Thank you. | |
| Justin,Frawley | My name is Justin Frawley. I live in Westchester. I want to ensure that my niece and nephew are handed a world in which we have done all we can to reduce carbon emissions. We have no time to lose in shifting to a clean energy economy. I would also like to echo remarks by Sustainable Westchester and New Yorkers for Clean Power and state that I support the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendation to: develop a plan for a managed and equitable transition to clean heating and cooling systems that maintains affordable, safe, and reliable utility service and protects low- and moderate-income households from an undue burden in the transition. I urge the Climate Action Council to include in the Scoping Plan the Gas Transition and Affordability Act (S.8198) to begin this process. I want to see the Plan include target dates for zero-emissions standards when replacing fossil fuel equipment at the end of its useful life, together with a program to affordably weatherize and upgrade buildings. To support households and businesses in this transition the Council must ensure cost parity with fossil systems before 2030 in upfront costs for electrification, with incentives and financing assistance as necessary, by immediately ramping up easily-accessible incentive programs to encourage households and residential building owners to weatherize and undertake electrical upgrades in preparation for future electrification. And by requiring an energy audit and basic weatherization and electrical service upgrades as a condition of home sales. In addition, I recommend providing funds for community groups' "on the ground" education and building support for the adoption/implementation of code standards that can accelerate the replacement of fossil fuel technology. Lastly final scoping plan should go into more detail on how the Public Service Commission will be required to incorporate the CLCPA into utility rate cases so that we can plan for an orderly, equitable reduction in the fossil gas grid. | ||
| Nicole ,C | Climate change has an impact on every facet of our existence. Climate change creates economic and security issues that have been measurable for years. Climate change impacts the health of every living species, including humans, and their ecosystems. It isn’t hyperbole to say we’re slowly killing the planet and ourselves. We are running out of time. The United States is a capitalist society. Because of that, we should let the fossil fuel industry collapse if they cannot adapt, instead of continuing to prop up a dying industry. We need to invest in our future if we actually want to have one. | ||
| Nathan,Rizzo | Solar Liberty | Please see the file 'Solar Liberty Letter to Climate Action Council-6-29-22' attached for details on our comments. Thank you for your consideration of our input. | |
| Deb,Peck Kelleher | Alliance for Clean Energy NY | Please find attached joint comments from 22 companies and organizations. | |
| Sydney,Timmer | New York State's climate leadership is not leadership at all. Instead, this is a plan to force citizens of NYS into abandoning fossil fuels and depending on unreliable, intermittent, and unaffordable renewable energy sources.This is a destructive plan that hurts people. The plan is detrimental to human flourishing and to human freedom. New York State government should back off and respect the citizens of this State. People should have liberty to decide whether they want to drive a gasoline car or an electric car. They should not be forced to make this decision. School districts and the communities they serve should have the right to determine if they will use gasoline or electric school buses. Such a decision should not be forced upon them. If a person wants to install a gas oven or gas furnace in their home or business, they should not be prohibited from doing so by the government. A government that forces these decisions upon the citizenry is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. In addition, the Climate Action Council is a powerful body composed of UNELECTED individuals. These members will have power that affects the day-to-day lives of the citizens of this State. This way of doing business is inherently anti-America. | ||
| Lauren,Brois | Sustainable Westchester | My name is Lauren Brois. I live in Mount Kisco NY. I support climate action and the CLCPA and want to see NY transition to a clean economy by 2050. We have no time to lose in shifting to a clean energy economy: The most recent assessment of the IPCC finds that climate change is already causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world. If we do not make steep cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the coming decades, global mean temperatures are predicted to rise to a level that greatly increases the risk of harm to the planet and to us. In addition to the comment I made at the Peekskill Public Hearing, I would also like to echo remarks by Sustainable Westchester and New Yorkers for Clean Power. 1. Ban fossil fuel heating & equipment in new buildings. I support the Scoping Plan's proposed 2024/2027 timeframe for prohibiting fossil fuels in new building construction. This timeframe should require that: • By 2024, all-electric energy codes are in place for new residential and mixed-use (residential/commercial) buildings under five stories; • by 2027, all-electric codes for new construction should be extended to all residential and commercial building types. 2. End fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. Support the Draft Scoping Plan's recommendations to: • Align state laws governing utility service with the Climate Act, eliminating the requirement of utilities to supply gas service to anyone who requests it and supporting the transition to equitable, energy-efficient electrification. • Immediately end State and utility marketing of fossil gas, and ramp up marketing and incentives for air-source and ground-source heat pumps. • Deny new gas infrastructure permits, which would only increase GHG emissions and create more stranded assets. Additionally, urge the Climate Action Council to include language directing utilities to end expansion of the gas distribution system into new geographic areas. | |
| Jen,Metzger | Policy Director, New Yorkers for Clean Power | Please see attached. Thank you! | |
| Sylvana,Maione | State programs promoting communities switching to LED municipal lighting are injuring and disenfranchising disabled New Yorkers. People with epilepsy, lupus, autism and other protected medical disabilities are already experiencing seizures, migraines, nausea, damaged vision, and brain fog caused by LEDs. We must be able to avoid LEDs to protect ourselves. When cities and towns switch to LED municipal lights, it becomes impossible for light disabled people to go anywhere in their community after dark, be it to work, to enter civic buildings, access medical or emergency services, or participate in any other way in the life of their hometown. The lighting industry is fully aware of the capacity of LEDs to cause harm. Their own literature openly discusses the medical risks to light-disabled people, while at the same time emphasizing how we are a minority. Deliberately harming a minority group is the definition of discrimination. Myself and many others are working desperately to bring attention to this crisis at all levels of government. The overwhelming fear, pain, stress and isolation we experience as we try to go about our daily lives as LEDs proliferate everywhere is is an unrelenting burden, one which destroys our happiness, safety, and relationships to our communities. And yet all this could be cured by the simple act of changing a light bulb from an LED to one that is safe for us. Super efficient incandescent bulbs were developed at MIT in the 2000s, and were three times more efficient than LEDs. Incandescents are the medically safest form of artificial light because they share the characteristics of natural light sources, unlike LEDs. Also unlike LEDs, they require no toxic components. This technology needs to be revived and put into production immediately for the health of both the environment and all citizens. Disabled New Yorkers must be protected from LEDs, and allowed to live our lives as safely and as free from harm as anyone else. Sylvana Maione | ||
| Willam,Acker | NY-BEST | Dear Climate Action Council Members: The New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium (“NY-BEST”) submits these comments in relation to the NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan for the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act released by the Climate Action Council on December 20, 2021. We appreciate the opportunity to share these comments. We can be reached at ---------- or by phone at ----------. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. William Acker Executive Director | |
| Kevin,Dugan | NYS Restaurant Association | ||
| Dan,Welsh | Town of Lewisboro (& Sustainable We stchester) | My name is Dan Welsh, and I live in South Salem, NY. I serve on the Lewisboro Town Board, and I am Program Director for the Sustainable Westchester Community Choice Aggregation program, Westchester Power. I'm writing to encourage that the CLCPA Draft Scoping Plan be accepted and energetically executed. Any plan to address the climate crisis must include "all of the above". The Scoping Plan, having taken input from a wide range of stakeholders, is thorough and covers all technical and societal sectors. There’s a huge amount of work to be done, and this is an excellent framework. Let’s get going! The Scoping Plan recognizes the importance of bringing local government to bear on these tasks. An example of this is the encouragement of the establishment of Community Choice Aggregation programs. While one of a number of strategies set out in Chapter 15, this is a highly effective medium for engagement and acceleration of clean energy uptake. Westchester’s experience has shown CCA to be a powerful vehicle for enlisting local governments as partners in the clean energy transition and a launch pad for further action. CCAs provide a channel for proactive and long-term collaboration that lives beyond any given election. Taking cues from State Policy Westchester municipalities have worked with State agencies to show how we can achieve CLCPA goals, and the CCA has provided a platform for ratcheting success forward. This has in turn translated to citizen engagement, the first efforts (much more to be done!) in removing barriers which excluded black and immigrant participation in the benefits and successes of the clean energy transition, and the internalizing of identification of the area as one that cares about leaving a livable future for the next generation. The Draft Scoping Plan has recognized the necessity of engagement at the local level and the role that local government should play, an example of the excellent thinking and inputs that went into this document. | |
| Jay,DiLorenzo | Preservation League of New York State | The reuse and sensitive weatherization of New York’s existing buildings, including historic buildings, should be a core component in the plan and recognized as an important strategy for achieving the State’s nation-leading climate directive to reduce carbon emissions by 2050. While low-carbon construction techniques may be years from wide acceptance, and newly constructed, energy efficient buildings will take years to pay back the carbon debt from their construction, reuse and weatherization is the fastest and cheapest way to reduce embodied climate emissions now. We recommend: 1. Prioritizing the reuse and sensitive retrofitting of existing buildings over demolition and new construction. 2. Supporting efforts to develop a trained workforce of craftspeople knowledgeable of effective techniques to restore and retrofit existing and historic buildings. 3. Enhancing existing tools like the New York State Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program as a way of encouraging building reinvestment in lower-income census tracts. 4. Encouraging deconstruction and salvage of building materials when building removal is the only option. | |
| Rachel,Carpitella | Sustainable Westchester | My name is Rachel Carpitella and I live in West Babylon, NY. I support strong climate action and want to see NY transition to a clean economy by 2050. We cannot achieve this goal without stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in our state. I support a clear moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, a 2024 mandate for all-electric new building construction, and investment in retrofitting existing buildings. In my community on the south shore of Long Island, we are experiencing extreme flooding and intense wind storms as climate change intensifies. In addition to what the draft scoping plan puts forward related to disadvantaged communities, I recommend that mechanisms are developed to ensure heating costs traditionally paid by the landlord in low-to-moderate income multifamily buildings, are not unfairly transferred to tenants following electrification. I strongly support the Gas System Transition and believe that in addition to the mention of thermal energy networks in the Buildings section that it should be described here as well but with a focus on the utilities’ role and the potential of public private partnerships or municipally owned thermal networks. I support the scoping plan's focus on the expansion of the Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law. In addition, I support additional technical and financial assistance for those government entities to promote local health and safety-related policies and regulatory changes that allow everyone to divert excess edible foods to feed those who are food insecure. In addition to the scoping plan’s recommendations, I support recommendations for the use of geo-eligibility methods for programs and offerings that are targeted to DACs to streamline household eligibility determinations and maximize the participation of households in DACs. | |
| Carlos,Gavilondo | National Grid | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | I recommend that the Final Scoping Plan include a conditional schedule that considers the availability of necessary technology and potential impacts to reliability and affordability before implementing certain control measures. I expect the response will be that because there is an existential threat due to climate change and we are seeing the effects of climate change now that we cannot wait to act. I provide references by noted experts that explain why there isn’t a climate crisis and why the Draft Scoping Plan’s reliance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summaries for policy makers is mis-placed. I also explain that it is inappropriate to claim that every observed extreme weather event is evidence of climate change. | |
| Kerrie,Gallo | Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper | Comments are contained in attached PDF. Thank you. | |
| Dragana,Thibault | Livingston Energy Group, LLC | ||
| Ken,Pokalsky | The Business Council of NYS, Inc. | ||
| Laszlo,Papp | Columbia University | INTOLERABLE NON-ESSENTIAL HELICOPTERS POLLUTING OUR CITY, ESPECIALLY MANHATTAN!! I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's And NJ's NON-ESSENTIAL HELICOPTER INDUSTRY in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 ANNUAL NONESSENTIAL HELICOPTER FLIGHTS from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. | |
| Pia,Fouilloux | Stop the Chop NY/NJ testified on one of the public zoom meetings regarding this Act, but we need more comments to be submitted SPECIFICALLY BRINGING UP THE HELICOPTER POLLUTION PROBLEM! | ||
| David,Dembik | Adopt these policies and prepare to lose congressional seats due to taxpayers leaving ny for states that respect individual freedoms, ex ny27 . Feebate, "a small fee" as described, is simply a means to punish those who cannot or will not submit to ZEV and will add to the tax burden which is currently causing new yorkers to flee. Small fees grow to burdensome fees in ny. I see no mention of disposal methods of batteries and turbines and believe these policies are not completely thought through. I am not in agreement with any of these delusional, social engineering proposals, and if enacted will look forward to my exit from ny. | ||
| Joselyn,Lai | Bedrock Energy | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. Bedrock Energy is a provider of geothermal heating & cooling systems for large buildings. We are thrilled about New York's vision and progress to date in implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and support this Council’s findings that “energy efficiency and end-use electrification are essential parts of any pathway that achieves New York State emission limits.” The Draft Scoping Plan recommends achievable pathways to meet the CLCPA requirements and support the installation of up to 1.8MM heat pumps by 2030 and creation of over 200,000 jobs with associated workforce training. The Draft Scoping Plan also supports the goal of the CLCPA in ensuring that 40% of clean energy & efficiency program benefits accrue to disadvantaged communities. Enclosed herein, Bedrock further recommends 6 additional legislative and regulatory actions that the Council should endorse in the Final Scoping Plan to strengthen the implementation of the CLCPA, generate more savings for NYS constituents, and sustain NYS’s leadership in climate action. #1. Adopt regionally appropriate drill depth thresholds, up to 2,500 feet, for exempting safe, closed-loop geothermal boreholes from drill permit requirements. #2. Sustain and enhance public financial incentives for geothermal heating & cooling systems to motivate building owners to install heat pumps at the necessary scale to meet the CLCPA requirements. #3. Expand tax incentives to lower overall system costs. #4. Expand low-cost finance offerings to ensure the benefits of clean, high-efficiency geothermal heating are available to all building owners. #5. Sustain the recommended timelines for adopting all-electric State building codes for new construction to meet the CLCPA requirements. #6. Couple Zero-emission standards for heating & cooling of existing buildings with additional incentives to meet the CLCPA requirements | |
| Mike,Reed | I don't have time for a detailed response as I only just found out about this comment period. The bottom line is that this plan is literally insane. It is not possible to power this state off of renewable energy without crushing the standard of living of all the residents. We already get warnings about energy use in the summer. What do you think will happen when you add all this other electric demand while powering the grid with inconsistent energy sources like wind and solar? The climate is not in crisis. Every dire prediction of climate disaster has been wrong. Every single one going back to Paul Ehrlich and even before him. You want to utterly devastate our energy sector for nothing. You say we get 27% of our energy from renewables but most of that 27% is hydro. There isn't more hydro power to be had. You think you can bring wind and solar power from 7% of our power to 80% of our power by 2030 WHILE increasing the demand for electricity? You're insane! If emissions is your concern then you clearly aren't serious because you aren't pursuing nuclear power. If you want to live like its 1850, go ahead. But leave the rest of the residents of this state out of this madness. | ||
| Yu Ann,Tan | RMI | ||
| Douglas,Presley | Dandelion Energy | See attached comment. | |
| Patrick,Serfass | American Biogas Council | ||
| Richard,Shane | I want to comment on the proposed climate actions by the Climate Action Council. In my opinion the proposals are extreme and unrealistic. They would be very expensive to implement with questionable results. It is all well and good to transition to renewable energy sources, but we are not yet at the point, nor will be in the near future where we can make renewal energy as our prime energy resource. Shutting off natural gas and forcing New Yorkers to convert to electric appliances will be a huge burden on the people and industry in this state. The proposal leaves out too many details about the cost and how the changes would be implemented. I ask the the Council to reconsider their proposals and come to a more sensible and realistic path forward. | ||
| Lindsey,Tyrna | The Council's plan calls for dramatic changes in how residents of New York will heat their homes and the types of vehicles we will be allowed to drive. All of these changes with substantially increase the state's demand for electricity and prove very costly for consumers and businesses. The citizens of New York will be the ones to bear the burden of increased costs and lack of services as we have become accustomed to. We are already seeing gas prices rise dramatically due to the current administration's policies. The plan incudes no new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; no natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; no new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; no gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and installing geothermal heating by 2040. I am opposed to all of this. All I see is a bunch of restrictions on consumers and no energy choices or independence for New Yorkers. New York State should be working with the Federal Government to increase US energy production, ramp up oil production, rollback taxes on gas, and remove all red tape for fracking. We need more dependable and effective energy policies which is definitely not what this group is proposing. | ||
| Alyssa,Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association | On behalf of the Northeast Dairy Producers Association (NEDPA) and Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance (NEAFA), please see the attached comments to the CLCPA draft scoping plan and supporting documents. The Northeast Dairy Producers Association (NEDPA) was founded in 1993 on environmental stewardship and this continues to be our top priority nearly 30 years later. NEDPA is an organization of dairy producers and industry partners committed to an economically viable, consumer conscious dairy industry dedicated to the care and well-being our communities, our environment, our employees, and our cows. Today, our producer members represent over 230,000 cows and over half the milk produced in New York State. They are committed to continuous improvement and sustainable practices that ensure the viability of New York agriculture for generations to come. The Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance (NEAFA) was established in 2004 and through advocacy, collaboration, and education, works to grow and support a sustainable agribusiness industry in the Northeast. Sincerely, John Dickinson, NEDPA Chair Danielle Penney-Stroop, NEAFA President | |
| Regi,Teasley | Tompkins County Environmental Man agement Council | As the chair of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, I urge you to fund Environmental Management Councils in New York. These citizen councils advise their respective legislatures and constitute an important resource to help implement the state’s climate goals. As well, they work to educate their county residents about important environmental and climate issues. There is so much work to do as the climate crisis intensifies. Thank you for reading my comments. | |
| Katherine,Cannella | The Draft Scoping Plan is missing references to the profession of Landscape Architecture and its great potential to contribute to the State’s climate action goals. Landscape Architects play a pivotal role in many areas covered by the Draft Scoping Plan, including but not limited to: public health and the environment, transportation, planning, forestry, green infrastructure, and climate change resiliency. Please add the term “Landscape Architect” to all cases where “architect,” “engineer,” or “planner” is used within the Draft Scoping Plan. In addition, please recognize Landscape Architects’ critical role in creating public spaces for communities that are healthy in all aspects. | ||
| Cornelia,Kelley | AES | ||
| Brenda,Kania | Please do not allow proof of work bit coin mining in NY state. There is a facility in my town of North Tonawanda. The facility is located 3/4 mile from my home and is h------ noisey. Emissions from the facility make it hard for me to breathe. I have asthma. Bit coin mining benefits only a few people. The emissions from this facility hurt many many people and wildlife. Please please help us by being strict with emission laws. Think of how emissions harm children. I thank you for your consideration. Brenda Kania 985 Remington Drive North Tonawanda NY | ||
| Chris,Voell | Nature Energy | Nature Energy is pleased to submit the attached comments. Please feel free to reach out with any questions regarding these. We look forward to working with the Council to perfect and implement the Scoping Plan. | |
| Viki,Ingersoll | Citizen | Attached please find a Word document with my comments regarding serious concerns I have with the proposed scoping plan | |
| Dennis,Chmiel | I can understand what we are trying to achieve with all the plans to do away with Natural gas, Etc. but the thought of going to all electricity for our country is way out of line. All it would take to bring our country to a standstill would be the shutdown of the grid system. Without electricity we couldn't heat our homes, drive our electric vehicles,and pump our water, and on and on. Changes are in line but relying on only one source for all our needs doesn't make sense. Please give some serious thought about not approving these changes without making some serious changes to them. | ||
| Leah,Meredith | Advanced Energy Economy | ||
| Ira,Dassa | Airlines for America (A4A) | ||
| Nina,Orville | Sustainable Westchester | Sustainable Westchester, strongly supports the comprehensive strategies outlined in the Draft Scoping Document to reach NY sustainability goals by 2030 and 2050. We support the Plan’s goals to implement aggressive renewable energy targets (i.e. 6GW of solar, 3GW of energy storage, and 9GW of wind in the next fifteen years), modernize the grid and decarbonize our buildings. Sustainable Westchester prioritizes local action, including through Community Choice Aggregation programs, to empower communities and local governments. Engagement of local stakeholders and community members in all efforts is critical to facilitating lasting and equitable change. We understand that equity is the foundation for sustainability and applaud a sharp focus on access to clean energy benefits for DACs, including allocation of 40% of the benefits. Correcting disproportionate harms from environmental racism and injustice through climate investments, and planning, codes and standards is critical. In the face of a weakened EPA, strong climate action by NYS is paramount and the cost of inaction would exceed that of action by approx. $90 - $120 billion. We must act collectively and decisively to enact the bold strategies set forth in the Draft Plan that supports the long and short term clean energy and fulfills community equity, health, accessibility, and workforce development needs. We would like to end by expressing our desire to collaborate with stakeholders involved in finalizing the Draft Scoping Plan, especially where Sustainable Westchester’s inter-municipal approach would bolster collective efforts toward climate equity and justice. | |
| Jessica,Ortiz | This plan will hurt myself and all NYers due to the rising costs of electricity. Please reconsider moving away from fossil fuels and do more research on the harm of electric vehicles etc. the batteries they have takes mining and child labor. How will we recycle these batteries once they’re used. This scares me for the future of my children and my family. | ||
| Mike,Durkin | Cobey | ||
| Eda,Kapsis | The LG 1 - 5 strategies have been accessible for municipal success on their program milestones. The programs offer tangible goals and support for local hard working volunteers in collaboration with local governments from Sustainable Westchester and Hudson Valley Regional Council. These are kernels of action for accountability and incentive. Next there is substantial opportunity to step forward with clearer accountability on the significance of the climate crisis to achieve the CLCPA targets. (1) Local governments and the LG 1 - 5 key strategies need an added path to the specific goals of the CLCPA as restated in this Scoping plan. To date there has been no communication to local governments and thus no statement of accountability to contribute to the goals for emission reductions defined in the meetings since March 2020. These voids are creating high risk to the CLCPA goals. (2) To keep stakeholders aligned across the varied municipal boundaries (GIS), the plan would benefit from development of a simple NYS measurement tool for top sector emissions. The Columbia Univ. ClimAID is potent and may be the foundation for addition of common measurements to be used by all stakeholders. In the vacuum, most local reductions claimed are estimates using assumptions. The marketing of estimates drives good will, but the emission reductions are not empirical. The tool would best serve with access to actual CO2-equivalent emission measures that make up GHG inventories for both municipalities and residences. Assumptive model vs direct measurements using ICLEI licensing has helped too. Ideally NYS DMV data, ConEd utility registry, https://publish.utilityregistry.org/app/#/datagrid, DEF waste reports including organic diversions, delta given use of low embodied carbon concrete, etc. are the best to clarify communications / call to action on impact. NY State needs the set of common metrics on the most impactful, controllable levers for CLCPA success. | ||
| jothan,cashero | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan: There are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from 3 NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, etc. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. The park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950lbs of CO2/hr, and burns over 40x the fuel of a car/hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. | ||
| Rodney,Graham | Oxbow Organic Farm | To whom it may concern, I am very concerned with this climate action draft and its timetable. Chapter 5 states our need for lessening our need for imported oil and gas. I agree. Why then do we export these commodities to Japan. 5.1 states “sweeping set of measures” when we have neither the technology or the facilities in place to replace our present mode of operation. Chapter 6.2 “retire fossil fuel infrastructure “ and “limit use of hydrogen, nuclear and biofuels”. Where is the sense of this. I strongly recommend the timeline be lengthened to accommodate the goals set out to to be achieved. We are facing a crises more concerning than our environment. Our national debt is climbing. Government regulations will be out of control. The EPA is an unregulated agency until the Supreme Court intercedes. This plan is overreaching in its agenda and implemation. Respectfully submitted, Rodney Graham | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: The Plan’s recommendations concerning Alternate Mobility appropriately recognize that these should be developed in ways appropriate to each community. Nevertheless, NYS should take responsibility for measuring the outcomes and communicating those results. The Plan recognizes the value of non-vehicular mobility (walking, biking, etc.) both to public health and to greenhouse gas reduction, and suggests an array of regulatory actions and government assistance that might promote such alternative mobility. The Plan also points to examples from different NYS communities that underscore the need to tailor programs to local circumstances. And it offers good recommendations for helping new businesses incorporate alternative mobility options for employees and customers when they set up new sites. Nonetheless, promoting non-vehicular mobility is so important to our future that state agencies must do more than suggest or facilitate. State agencies should assume responsibility for setting timelines and for measuring the success of local programs like car-free streets and bike lanes. State agencies should regularly communicate that information to local communities. | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: In the judgement of the 3600 members of 350Brooklyn, the draft Scoping Plan’s proposals for market-based solutions to encourage Zero-Emission Vehicles are promising but must do more to protect low-income New Yorkers. The Plan recommends a number of ways in which New York State could encourage the purchase of ZEVs. These include variable parking fee and vehicle registration fees, undertaking feasibility studies for businesses with vehicle fleets that they need to transition to ZEVs, expanding NY’s Green Bank, and offering state backing for bank loans for ZEVs. The plan mentions assisting low- and middle-income New Yorkers with rebates to help them afford ZEVs. All of these are useful recommendations but NYS should do more to work with people in disadvantaged communities so ZEV’s become viable options for them. This will include attention to charging infrastructure and electricity costs as well as the cost of the vehicles themselves. Note, too, that references to self-driving vehicles and the “Internet-of-Things” point to developments that pose both safety and privacy risks, don’t offer improved pathways to zero emissions, and are priced out of the reach of low- and middle-income New Yorkers. They have no place here. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn are deeply concerned about the draft Scoping Plan's recommendations about the use of hydrogen and biofuels in transportation. This should raises red flags. The Plan suggests that hard-to-decarbonize modes of transportation such as aviation and heavy trucks be encouraged to shift to lower carbon versions of fossil fuels. We’re mystified by what the Plan refers to as “renewable diesel” and “renewable jet fuel,” but assume this refers to blending biofuels into petroleum-based fuels. Biofuels bring their own problems, namely the extensive use of agricultural land for mono-cultures that feed no one, and the release of carbon dioxide when burned. Blending them with petroleum fuels simply somewhat lowers the emission of local air pollution and greenhouse gasses without eliminating them. “Green” hydrogen is not currently an option. It is currently too expensive to be marketable and its volatility would require building out extensive (and expensive) infrastructure to ensure safety. Moreover, producing it yields carbon dioxide so it needs to be paired with Carbon Capture and Storage, a technology that is not currently available at scale and at a marketable price. New York’s Clean Energy Standard must steer clear of both biofuels and hydrogen. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim 350Brooklyn | |
| Jenna,Cain | Sunrise Westchester | In Sunrise Westchester’s work trying to standardize policy around environmental justice in Westchester County, it has quickly become clear that NY’s Clean Energy Communities (CEC) and Climate Smart Communities (CSC) programs were formed around the idea of advancing climate action locally, but fail to prioritize low-income and BIPOC communities in doing so. Applying for the grants accessible through these programs can be competitive and time-consuming; thus, the programs favor communities with the temporal and economic means to apply for these grants and, if disadvantaged communities are able to apply, exclude them on the grounds of having completed climate actions prior to the application than other communities of more means, typically majority-white communities, are able to. This Draft Scoping Plan frequently discusses the CSC and CEC programs as landmarks of NY climate action, but only once acknowledges that they have been ineffective in helping low-income and BIPOC communities and offers few solutions to resolve such inequities. Sunrise Westchester calls on the NY Climate Action Council to revise its plans around the CSC and CEC programs in the final Scoping Plan. This should include more funding towards resources for BIPOC and low-income communities specifically to apply to these programs, such as state-funded personnel who could do the intricate tasks involved with applying for these grants that disadvantaged community leaders often do not have the means to do, and prioritizing disadvantaged communities as the recipients of these grants. | |
| Lori,Flynn | The Scoping plan should be thrown out. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn make the following recommendation concerning transportation; The draft Scoping Plan’s recommendations concerning Alternate Mobility appropriately recognize that these should be developed in ways appropriate to each community. Nevertheless, NYS should take responsibility for measuring the outcomes and communicating those results. The Plan recognizes the value of non-vehicular mobility (walking, biking, etc.) both to public health and to greenhouse gas reduction, and suggests an array of regulatory actions and government assistance that might promote such alternative mobility. The Plan also points to examples from different NYS communities that underscore the need to tailor programs to local circumstances. And it offers good recommendations for helping new businesses incorporate alternative mobility options for employees and customers when they set up new sites. Nonetheless, promoting non-vehicular mobility is so important to our future that state agencies must do more than suggest or facilitate. State agencies should assume responsibility for setting timelines and for measuring the success of local programs like car-free streets and bike lanes. State agencies should regularly communicate that information to local communities. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Andy,Bicking | Scenic Hudson | ||
| Theresa,Von Vreckin | Von Vreckin & Associates | I believe this plan is too aggressive and very short sighted. The time frame for the changes is too short to allow for the infrastructure to be updated to support the increase in electric usage. Our electric grid has outages due to load currently - in all seasons. Switching to more electric reliance is going to increase the number of outages. Think about the "freak" storm that hit Texas that where the ice caused the wind and the solar power to stop functioning. It caused freezing temps and ice and many residence with no heat. You had pipes bursting along with other damage and peoples lives at risk. Reliance on one power source "electric" is also an National Security risk. There are weapons that can send out a pulse and disable/destroy electric power. This leaves the state/country vulnerable to other who wish to do us harm. From an environmental stand point, to making and storing electric power is not "clean" as touted and is very expensive. The lithium used in the batteries is toxic. To dispose of this when the batteries are not longer any good is going to create an environmental crisis. In the North where temperatures get very cold these batteries are not going to last as long. The other consideration with the use of the batteries is where the lithium is being sourced from. The US purchases this from countries such as Ukraine (which is part of why Russia invaded -they want to control a lot of the Ukraine's resources). We are moving in the wrong direction in reliance on foreign countries. We need to be more energy independent for (heating, transportation etc..). The cost of these initiatives is beyond what the average person /business can reasonably afford. this will drive more people and business to leave and already struggling state. | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the members of the Climate Action Council: While the draft Scoping Plan does recognize the significance of heavy-traffic areas like ports and depots to the climate crisis, the 3600 members of 350Brooklyn recommend that it should also make recommendations that address the contributions last mile warehouses and just-in-time delivery make to global warming. The Plan recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopt regulations similar to California’s Advanced Clean Fleets proposal that require that medium- and heavy-duty trucks in use in heavy-traffic areas become Zero-Emission Vehicles by 2035. This proposal should integrate concerns with last-mile fulfillment centers, just-in-time stocking practices, and next-day delivery offerings. Such fulfillment centers are often placed in environmental justice communities that consequently see a steep rise in truck traffic. The transition to ZEV’s would certainly lower air pollution but would not in itself improve safety or community quality of life. Shifting from distribution designs that prioritize speed to ones that prioritize the fewest miles traveled would reduce energy consumption while improving safety. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn write in strong support of the draft Scoping Plan's recommendations for extensive investments in public transportation, investments that will benefit a wide swath of New Yorkers. Recognizing the critical role public transportation plays in reducing miles traveled by private vehicles, the Climate Action Council is to be commended for its extensive attention to both electrifying and expanding public transportation. The Plan stresses the need for community-based discussions when formulating actual plans, which is appropriate. For example, in New York City, much could be done to make subways more accessible and subway platforms safer, buses could better accommodate bicycles and strollers, and programs that reward frequent riders with free service, now being piloted, could be expanded. Indeed, expanding, electrifying, and improving public transportation must be a top priority to reduce emissions, improve access (especially for disadvantaged communities), and improve public health and safety. Thank you, Sara Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn write in support of the two aspects of Chapter 11 below: The Plan appropriately recommends the necessity of a rapid and comprehensive transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles while recognizing that shifting to ZEV’s alone won’t fully address transportation’s contributions to NYS’s greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for 28% of New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions, emissions that are 16% higher than they were in 1990. The Plan lays out strong goals for the adoption of ZEV cars, trucks, buses, farm equipment, small boats, and other modes that are now fueled primarily by petroleum products. Yet the plan also recognizes that expanding public transportation and making it more accessible and appealing, supporting non-motorized transportation like walking and bicycling, and promoting Smart Growth are all important to New York State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions from this sector to below 85% of 1990 levels by 2050. The Climate Action Council should hold steady to this vision of a comprehensive approach to transitioning transportation in New York State. The Plan recommends adjusting utility charges to support the near-universal use of ZEVs. As we push to “electrify everything,” the price of electricity to the end user will dramatically affect the success of such efforts. The Plan recognizes the key role the Public Service Commission will play in ensuring that utilities deliver affordable electricity for charging Zero-Emission Vehicles. Whether by encouraging off-peak pricing, ensuring that public and fleet charging infrastructure is non-discriminatory, or by other mechanisms, the PSC must ensure that low and moderate-income New Yorkers, in particular, are not burdened by this shift. Both of these should be included at full strength in the final Scoping Plan. Thank you, Sara Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Barbara,Nichter | I am outraged at this scoping plan!! This country has had the lowest greenhouse emissions then any other country. We have plenty of fuel. It’s this illegitimate Biden administration that is taking us down the sewer!! I am against this and will vote against anyone who stands for this. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion | ||
| Bob,Graham | The need to be good stewards of our environment and reduce pollution is basic common sense. It's like keeping your home clean and in good repair for you and your family. Unfortunately this document is too long and often too technical for the average person to have time or a reasonable ability to understand. That's the biggest challenge of climate change. We need to rely on others to devise solutions and explain them to us and unfortunately NYS doesn't have a great track record of doing that. This will lead to major disruptions of our lives and the economy. They could be for the best. They will definitely cost people money and with 1 in 3 people living near or below the poverty line a huge, unanswered question is how will they be able to afford the changes and disruptions this will bring? | ||
| Anthony,Platoni | I oppose every chapter, and each appendix of the Climate Action Council’s Draft Scoping Plan. New York’s diversity of power sources provides a measure of resiliency for the State. Heavy reliance on intermittent, weather dependent generation sources like wind, solar, and battery storage is not rational, and could never provide enough energy to power the State. Build more nuclear where it is needed, instead of shutting it down. | ||
| Jessica,Johnson | The New York State Climate Action Council must move forward with the most aggressive and scientifically-sound of the strategies towards reducing statewide carbon emissions, likely Strategy 4. However, the Plan should more clearly define Strategies 3 & 4 before final roll-out. Time is of the essence and there cannot be any further delays by entertaining less drastic measures such as Strategies 1 & 2 that put industries before people. When weighing the over 11,000 public comments received, comments put forward by lobbyists and industry representatives should not be considered to the same extent as everyday people of New York - who our state resources legally belong. The building sector alone accounts for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. This plan focuses mainly on reductions in emissions by converting the building sector to heat pumps and electrification, which is ideal in the long-term but ignores the simple opportunity in the short-term to require commercial buildings to reduce lighting and heating operations at night when buildings are not occupied by workers. Additionally, focus on making the building sector more environmentally safe should not forego the opportunity to legislate that new commercial buildings in New York State incorporate bird-safe strategies to reduce strikes. While not directly related to emissions, the amount of bird strikes annually overall reduces biodiversity through aannually overall reduces biodiversity through a major loss of the food web, contributing significantly to a loss in ecological resilience. Additionally, significant incentives must focus first and foremost on environmental justice neighborhood residents who may not have the same access to capital resources necessary for conversion. Similarly, large-scale development companies should not reap the rewards for incentivized programs. And the sovereign nations of indigenous peoples need to be listened to. | ||
| Christina,Allen | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan: There are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from 3 NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, etc. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. The park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950lbs of CO2/hr, and burns over 40x the fuel of a car/hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat, referred to as the new second hand smoke. | ||
| Richard,Chapman | https://rumble.com/v1apkb3-ny-criminally-insane-lawmakers-want-to-pass-sadistic-cruel-climate-plan.html Ny's climate action plan is cruel and sadistic, and would freeze hundreds of thousands to death in their homes and even on the roads if they get stuck in winter as electric car engines cannot be run for heat. | ||
| Donna,Hickling | Private Individual | Hello, As a gardener and a consumer of agricultural products, I am hoping NYS takes leadership in agriculture to address the climate crisis we are facing. I am working on making my 1+ acre home into an "edible forest garden" using native plants without pesticides and herbicides. My garden is just a same step for the state. The Climate Action Plan needs to have: A mitigation strategy in the Agriculture and Forestry Sector to convert 25% of NY farmland to organic by 2030 through proactive technical assistance programs, certification subsidies, and grant funding focusing on small family farms. A requirement that agriculture and forestry projects that receive public funding use soil health practices as defined in Agriculture & Markets (AGM) CHAPTER 69, ARTICLE 11-B, § 151-l. Statewide soil health goals with methods to track progress and ensure the permanence of soil-sequestered carbon. Discourage the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. The prohibition of synthetic fertilizers in organic production reduces a significant agricultural source of nitrous oxide as well as energy use. According to the EPA, nitrous oxide emissions from soils comprise 50.4% of all domestic agricultural emissions. A mitigation strategy in Climate-Focused Bioeconomy to create programs and target funding to enable access to land, capital, and farming resources for underserved groups including BIPOC, women, LGBTQIA+, low-income, veterans, beginning farmers, and undocumented farmworkers with inclusion of those groups in the planning and implementation. Replace much of the language in AF9 and AF10 with wording that calls for an end to public investments in technologies, including expensive cover and flare systems and biodigesters, that enable the accelerating concentration of livestock farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that produces most of the climate affective greenhouse gases by farms. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, Donna Hickling | |
| Eda,Kapsis | The Scoping Plan includes many excellent plans and recommendations for Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling. Key modifications are essential to BOLDLY set proposed and additional transformative initiatives on a path to Zero Waste for NY State. (1) Trash incineration is not compatible with resolutions to mitigate the climate crisis. Incinerator operators should not define the marketplace. The plan should call for and outline phasing out the state’s 10 aging incinerators in transition to processing of segmented, diverted waste streams. These are also significant shifts to remediate environmental injustice. (2) Due to widespread contamination with PFAS, sewage sludge has no “beneficial use” as a fertilizer or soil amendment. Composting sewage sludge does not make it safe. Use of neonic pesticides must also stop. These steps ensure NYS further protects farmlands and gardens. (3) The plan should call for and plan for diversion of food scrap/waste and yard organics (that are not managed in place) from landfills and incinerators. Vermont has successfully implemented solutions and the plan / implementation can be a model for NY. Also please reach Sally Rowland of NY DEC about her work reporting that diversion is a net reduction of CO2 equiv. emission regardless of carting. Removing organics from the landfill / incinerator waste stream will mitigate significant emissions and climate risk conditions they present today. (4) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) recommendations must be nuanced — EPR programs should be managed by the state, not controlled by corporations (“producer responsibility organizations”). The track record of EPR in British Columbia shows that corporate control doesn’t lead to the intended outcomes. EPR should concentrate on the most problematic materials and products, excluding traditional recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastics, and metals). EPR should not allow incineration and “chemical recycling” to be considered recycling. | ||
| Ross ,Berntson | I believe transitioning away from natural gas is a major mistake unless you radically increase the number of nuclear power plants. Natural gas is a clean and secure source of heat that basic thermodynamics supports. How will NYS stay competitive without the goal of having the best energy systems as defined by availability, flexibility and low cost. Thank you. Ross | ||
| Gerard,Maxim | I live on the North Shore of Long Island and have been fighting for the last 14 years for Politicians and the Federal Aviation Administration to take action to curtail the enormous number of helicopters that pass directly overhead of my house on a daily basis starting with Memorial Day Weekend in May and continuing through late September. Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Homeowner's and Resident's like myself are entitled to a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet which the helicopters violate on a daily basis. Almost every time a helicopter passes overhead the downward thrust of the helicopter's blades rattle the dishes in my cabinets and the grills in my windows. Homeowner's / Residents, Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are breathing in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. Please fell free to contact me as I will gladly provide the years of helicopter logs I've kept documenting them passing overhead / near my house. | ||
| Patrick,Connelly | Eliminating Natural Gas as an option to heat out homes, which by the way is a clean and abundant natural resource, will have a large economic impact on the people you supposedly are concerned with. The transition away from fossil fuels is under way but if the transition from fossil fuels is forced before an acceptable, dependable replacement is in place the result will put a high financial burden on the people on NY, many of who will leave the state, if they can, which will result in an increased tax burden on the people and industry who remain, which will result in a deeper downward spiral of prosperity for the people of this great state. Don't put specific dates on when people will no longer be able to use natural gas to heat their homes or when people will no longer be able to drive a gasoline powered vehicle. When other comparable, affordable options are available people will make the switch, if it is forced it will not work. Consider a global view of the efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Eliminating the ability for New Yorkers to use Natural Gas to heat their homes will have a very tiny impact on the global carbon footprint at the global level. Other countries and states are still burning coal to generate power, perhaps that should be addressed before New Yorkers are burdened with the expense of paying for the design and development of a new electrical infrastructure. Sincerely, Patrick J. Connelly | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn submit the following comments: The Draft Scoping Plan should make strong provisions for shifts in energy costs for space cooling, protecting both landlords and tenants.Building owners are typically required to pay for heating and hot water for their tenants, while tenants pay for their own electricity bills. With heat pumps, which provide both heating and cooling, it becomes more complicated to split up the metering, meaning building owners in many cases would also need to pay for cooling for their tenants, reducing their incentive to engage in heat pump projects. In order for building owners to submeter space cooling to their tenants, they would need to pay an additional subscription fee to a third party to act as the utility for submetering. This additional cost does not make sense for buildings with a smaller number of units. Making it easier for building owners to submeter space cooling to their tenants or providing additional incentives for building owners to start paying for energy costs during the cooling season would make them more likely to undertake a heat pump retrofit. The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that all state agencies proactively align their policies and procedures to align with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. If such alignment requires new legislation, such legislation should be recommended.The Public Service Commission is an example of an agency whose actions will greatly affect how successful the implementation of the CLCPA is, as this is the agency that oversees all utilities in the state. The contraction of fossil gas will require major supervision by the PSC. The PSC oversees the provision of electricity, including billing rates, which affects the affordability of running heat pumps for heating and cooling, as well as other appliances. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Arthur,Bell | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Sara,Gronim | To the Members of the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn offer the following comment on Chapter 12: Buildings: The Draft Scoping Plan does not go far enough to protect disadvantaged New Yorkers, particularly renters, during the transition to electrification. The Draft Scoping Plan does acknowledge that low and moderate building owners and New Yorkers living in Disadvantaged Communities may need particular resources that give them access to electrifying their homes and small businesses. Integrating energy requirements and resources into affordable housing deals might expand access to low-cost yet efficient electrified housing. Unspecified regulatory and other strategies coupled with targeted investments could be used to advance equitable outcomes for low and moderate income households and for Disadvantaged Communities. And yet, low and moderate income New Yorkers are particularly vulnerable to spikes in energy prices that may occur during this transition. Improvements via building electrification may lead landlords to raise rents, displacing vulnerable renters. Predatory business practices by contractors may be exacerbated by the opportunities electrification presents. More robust and specific protections for low and moderate income New Yorkers and for Disadvantaged Communities need to be included in the Draft Scoping Plan’s recommendations. These should include a utility bill of rights for every household; a safety net of guarantees of affordable renewable energy for every consumer; and clawback provisions for public subsidies should a landlord use such improvements to raise rents. Enforcement of NYS’ current Energy Affordability Policy (energy costs should be no more than 6% of a household’s income) should be adequately funded. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | ||
| Matthew,Stanley | Home Composting: The Draft Scoping Plan encourages the recycling of food scraps by large-scale producers. There is no mention, however, of home composting. Home composting of food scraps and yard trimmings reduces the amount of organic material that ends up in landfills and is a great way for (practically) every New Yorker to make their own contribution in the fight against greenhouse gases. The Draft Scoping Plan should strengthen existing programs and encourage new efforts to expand home composting. Plant-Based Diet: The Draft Scoping Plan notes that (t)he highest level of agricultural emissions is attributed to livestock. The Draft Scoping Plan’s efforts to reduce livestock emissions are focused on alternative manure management systems. The Draft Scoping Plan should also encourage the adoption of a plant-based diet by all New Yorkers as a strategy to reduce (and potentially eliminate) livestock emissions. | ||
| David,Dibbell | From Chapter 2: "Warming trends and incidences of intense heat waves will contribute to greater localized heat stresses..." and "New York is feeling the impacts of a global issue." These claims are contrary to official NOAA records of monthly average maximum temperatures in New York. Here are links to the history from 1895 through 2021 for the months of June, July, August, and September for all of New York. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/30/tmax/1/6/1895-2021 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/30/tmax/1/7/1895-2021 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/30/tmax/1/8/1895-2021 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/30/tmax/1/9/1895-2021 The Chapter 10 benefits arise from avoidance of claimed warming-related harm in our state. It is obvious by reviewing these plots that it is unsound to expect to reliably realize the benefits claimed. No one knows why New York experienced higher monthly maximum temperatures in the past than at present, at much lower concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The variation is far greater than any calculated long-term trend, making it impossible to firmly diagnose a cause of past or recent conditions. Therefore there is no assurance that conditions in the future can be moderated in the state by implementing a costly program of decarbonization. There is simply no reliable way to know. And if it is not possible to assure that the benefits will be realized, then the enormous costs cannot be justified. | ||
| Kathryn,Missert | This plan is part of a total destruction of the United States of America. You are asking for us to be dependent on China for our energy. The Solar panels are owned by China and even if we make them here, the resources we will need are from China. China is destroying our border (paying Cartel $30,000-$40,000 a head for every illegal immigrant they can smuggle through); they are funneling Fentanyl drugs which are killing our citizens at record numbers through this border; they have infiltrated our agriculture with the take over of our farm land; and have infiltrated our educational systems. This Committee and its plan is aiding and abetting our demise. This Citizen Voter of the United States of America does not support these ideas in any way...no matter how you manipulate the information. You can tell me what you want me to believe...I will tell you what I know to be true! | ||
| Diane,Cohen | Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft scoping plan. Incorporated 15 years ago, Finger Lakes ReUse (FLR) is an environmental NGO with the mission: to enhance community, economy, and environment through reuse. Our Articles of Incorporation authorized by NYS in October 2007 include the following purpose: To provide consultation services on reuse to communities, non-profit organizations, businesses, and other entities requesting assistance. Reuse is distinctly different and far more environmentally preferable to recycling, is much more than a thrift store, and more than keeping items out of landfills and incinerators. Reuse not only reduces unnecessary waste, reuse also creates local economic and professional development opportunity, while helping avoid global extraction, production, and transport - all energy-intensive, mainly fossil fuel-driven processes with often unfair labor practices taking advantage of vulnerable populations in developing countries. FLR enhances the community by creating a growing number of living wage job opportunities for people who have experienced barriers to employment, we enhance the economy by diverting waste that Tompkins County residents, businesses and institutions pay to throw away, but instead we redirect these materials through our Community ReUse Centers and sell them at $2,000-$3,000 per ton vs a cost of $96 per ton to dispose. And there is no question reuse enhances the environment, not just by reducing what goes to landfills and incinerators, but by avoiding the activity in making the item in the first place, with even greater harm, at the other end of the pipe. Reuse is gaining attention and momentum in NYS... PLEASE READ OUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ATTACHED LETTER. Thank you. | |
| Bob,Zerrillo | New York Public Transit Association | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn urge the CAC to be more mindful of the cost to low and middle-income people in shifting to the energy systems we need. For example, the Draft Scoping Plan needs to ensure that utility rates reinforce electrification, or provide a mechanism for alternative compensatory funding. For many single-family homes, a heat pump retrofit in addition to an air-sealing or insulation upgrade will cost more than $21,000. This, combined with the fact that there are little to no financial savings on utility costs from switching from natural gas to electric heating, means that much of the time heat pump projects are difficult for many building owners to afford long-term. Additionally, for residential (1-4 unit) buildings, the incentive amounts were decreased by Con Edison for installations occurring on or after March 1, 2022. It has consequently become more costly for building owners to install heat pumps and decommission their current fossil fuel equipment. It is imperative to increase incentives for heat pump projects also given the recent increase in electric utility costs. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Scott,Munson | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Donald,Hauser | Hauser | in my thoughts , total electric is not the answer , natural gas is clean in my opinion , Climate change has been going on for over thousands of years and going green isn't going to change that . Lithium batteries can cause more damage to the environment than natural gas . what will you do for backup when there are power outages , what will you do when electric cars start on fire . Will we stop launching rockets into space , stop airplanes , railroads , cruise ships , etc . Health issues for example recreational use of cannabis is ok but use of fossil fuels isn't . Wind turbines have their faults , solar panels also , before acting you need a 100% plan and that won't happen . A greater chance of a nuclear war destroys the world before carbon emissions . Scientists create disasters too , look at Covid 19 , Manhattan project , | |
| Rebecca,Stear | With the Supreme Court recently decreasing the power of the EPA I am worried about the direction that our country is going in. It's nice to see New York State addressing this issue on their own. As a healthcare worker for 25 years, I have definitely seen the number of people with asthma and allergies increase. I think that the pandemic also gave us some insight as to what is truly essential. We have found that we really don't need to have so many commuters on the roads as they can perform their jobs at home and decrease emissions. I don't know if offering corporations an incentive to keep their workers at home would be an option. It seemed to help reduce the amount of seasonal flu as well. Thank you, New York, for continuing to value our environment! | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn strongly recommend that the following aspect of Chapter 12--and,indeed, in all chapters-- be strengthened in the final Scoping Plan. While the Draft Scoping Plan recognizes that the expense of electrifying buildings will be more than offset in the aggregate by the benefits in terms of job creation and health cost savings, it falls short in specifying the sources of funds. The Draft Scoping Plan calls for the electrification of one to two million homes (or 125,000 to 250,000 homes per year) by 2030, with 85% of all residential and commercial buildings relying on heat pumps by 2050. While this is expected to generate 100,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030, the costs will be in the billions of dollars. The Plan recommends scaling up direct cash incentives for electrifying buildings, and piloting and scaling up financial support for community-scale solutions serving hundreds of homes and businesses that contract for energy upgrades. But the Plan does not specify where the money for these programs will come from. The Plan suggests exploring a geothermal tax credit similar to the state’s Solar Energy System Equipment Credit, which would help somewhat. It does mention the possibility of aligning price signals for energy with the CLCPA’s goals by pricing GHG emissions from fossil fuels, which could potentially be a source of significant investment in building electrification. But the suggestions for funding mechanisms need to be more robust here. Building electrification is so central to progress on New York State’s climate goals that it must have a sufficient dedicated source of funding. Thank you, Sara Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Anne,McShea | OW Ocean Winds East | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn strongly support the recommendations: The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the need to phase out fossil gas and recommends some immediate steps while acknowledging the need for careful planning.With fossil gas the largest source of heating fuel in NYS (as well as a major source of electricity generation), eliminating gas will be essential to the achievement of the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends two strategies that can be implemented immediately, both of which will contribute to halting the expansion of gas. One strategy would be the immediate halt to the marketing of gas by utilities and state agencies. The other would end the “100 foot rule” that requires utilities to build a distribution leg to any building that is within a hundred feet of a gas distribution line upon the owner’s request. Furthermore, it recommends that the Public Service Commission ban new gas service to existing buildings beginning in 2024. The Draft Scoping Plan acknowledges that contracting the distribution of fossil gas will take careful planning to ensure that the strategy for doing so is equitable and cost-effective while maintaining safety, affordability, and reliability. The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the need to transition from hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are used in many refrigerants, including those used in heat pumps, as well as in foam insulation. While the Montreal Protocol of 1987 phased out the use of ozone-depleting older HFCs, the HFCs still in use have Global Warming Potentials significantly higher than CO2, sometimes thousands of times more. The Plan has a range of good recommendations about this problem, including updating regulations and codes, training for contractors, and supporting demonstration projects for low and ultra-low GWP refrigerants. Phasing out HFCs will not only mitigate global warming, but also negative environmental ramifications and health impacts. | |
| Jeremy,Burdick | I strongly urge you to not enact legislation that limits consumers options on heating, appliances and transportation. Thank you | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn strongly supports the following recommendation and urge that it be retained with all its strength in the final Scoping Plan: The Draft Scoping Plan recommends changes to building codes that would mandate the shift to electrified buildings. The Plan recommends new building codes that incorporate advanced standards for highly efficient, all-electric new construction, along with energy storage and/or onsite renewable generation that enhances building resilience. The Plan recommends regulations that prohibit the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at the end of useful life, and require the installation of energy-efficient, zero-emission equipment for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and appliances. The Plan recommends the adoption of regulations that would require existing buildings to improve their energy efficiency. All state energy codes must be aligned with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The Plan specifies near-term dates for many of these changes, which is a recognition of the urgency of these recommendations. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Jordan,Flanagan | AJW, Inc. | Hello, I am submitting comments on behalf of Enerkem, Inc. Enerkem appreciates the opportunity to provide a response to the NYS Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Shane ,Butler | Chenango County Department of Plan ning and Development | See attached file. | |
| Dennis,Krepil | Retired IBEW LOCAL 3 | Hello. My Brothers, and Sisters in the IBEW effected by gas transitions across NY State, should be trained in the Solar, Wind , and Hydrogen systems that will be replacing natural gas. There should be an overlap , and smooth transition. The IBEW has the work force that can make this happen ! Stay Safe. Dennis Krepil | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn praises the following in Chapter 12 and urges that these be retained in the final scoping plan: The Draft Scoping Plan fully recognizes that electrifying buildings is essential if NYS is to meet the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The plan highlights the centrality of high-efficiency heat pumps to electrifying buildings, pointing out that ground and air source pumps are “a viable, cost-effective approach to decarbonizing operations for nearly all buildings in New York.” The plan also points out the need to replace end-of-life water heaters, dryers, and stoves with electric appliances as part of the process of electrifying buildings. Buildings will also need to be made more efficient. The prominence of heat pumps and electric appliances in this report is a good first step in expanding public understanding of how we must address the climate crisis. The Scoping Plan recognizes the need to adopt zero emissions codes for buildings. Along with prohibiting the replacement of fossil fuel equipment at their end of life for existing buildings, recommending that other energy efficiency measures be coupled with heat pumps will ensure that buildings can become not only electrified, but also energy efficient. Coupling heat pump projects with envelope upgrades such as adding insulation into buildings and replacing, sealing, or upgrading windows and doors to reduce infiltration will reduce the size of heat pump equipment needed to heat a space, ultimately saving the building owner or tenant on energy costs over time. Additionally, adopting resiliency measures into the energy code that will support grid reliability will allow for a large number of buildings in the future to transition away from fossil fuels without disrupting the current grid infrastructure. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Robert,Pearl | I am against the Council's dramatic changes to NY gas plan for all the years changes will occur. 1. I want fossil fuel usage to continue in NYS. NYS has an unlimited supply of natural gas. 2. It's too soon to force changes on homeowners and the middle class who prefer gas for utilities. 3. COOKING with natural gas is the favored method for homeowners. Natural gas is much cheaper for resident and business use. 4. The middle class and restaurants have been negatively effected financially since COVID and now inflation. In 2030 requiring a change in cooking will impact the middle class and restaurants GREATLY. LET HOMEOWNERS LIVE IN PEACE!!!! 5. STOP INTERFERING WITH THE WAY A MAJORITY OF HOMEOWNER CONSTITUENTS CHOOSE TO RUN THEIR HOMES. 6. OUR STATE GOVERNMENT AND APPOINTED COUNCILS NEED TO MAKE SENSIBLE CHOICES WHICH EFFECTS THE MAJORITY OF NYS RESIDENTS. 7. STOP WASTING OUR TAX $$$$$$ ON ENDLESS STUDIES, ETC. THANK YOU, ROBERT PEARL | ||
| Justin,Gundlach | Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School | ||
| Debbie,Forcione | I’m am greatly opposed to the green new deal. This will have devastating consequences to our economy. As a small business owner, my expenses have gone up dramatically. This will cause businesses to close there doors. Please vote no! Debbie forcione | ||
| Kelly ,Bates | Retired | As a lifelong New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. As someone, like many, who is blessed in life there are still realities we must all face. Many people, like myself, worked their whole life to save for retirement. Luckily enough I am able to enjoy it. However, I still have a budget I must adhere to. My vehicle is aging, and thankfully doing well now, but I will likely need to replace it at somepoint. A ban on gas powered vehicles in 2030 would hit me at the worst time. Later in my retirement, now needing to purchase a much more expensive electric vehicle and even more limited funds. This will be an issue for many New Yorkers, not just myself. This will detrimentally impact not only those that are in their wonder years but those that are aging and will soon be in similar situations to our seniors. The draft scoping plan does not answer these questions. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | |
| Shawn,Learned | To whom it may concern, Please say NO to any bills that have to do with fixing the supposed "climate change problem we have!!!" We have summer and winter. Some are warmer and some colder. We don't need to spend billions of dollars on something like this that's ridiculous!!! We have so many real problems where our hard earned money can go!!! Thank you. | ||
| Richard,Davenport | This plan is not a benefit to the people, the environment, nor the planet, and is an over reach on NY's part, as NY's responsibility is to NYers, not the planet CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant, and without COs, we have no photosynthesis and no food, and no oxygen. Natural gas and petroleum-based energy is efficient and we can make our use of these fuels more efficient. Electing to ban such effective energy amounts to robbing the people whom you serve of their liberty, which is your ultimate aim in this, it certainly will do nothing to save the planet. Your job and responsibility is to assure the people whom you serve (all NYers, not special interests, nor yourselves) and this plan does none of that, will only cause unneeded harm to the environment and communities you claim it will benefit. There exists no scientific justification for any of the proposed measures - none. And weather forecasts aren't science. The fact that not a single SEQR wax performed on any renewable project, coupled with the lack of reclamation bond requirements clearly shows you are in violation of the public trust. The climate change "law is arbitrary and capricious, and must be repealed. The electric grid must be updated, as it is designed, it cannot handle electric vehicle charging, and foisting costs of EVs and Heat Pumps onto the residents that account for 3% of electrical energy usage, and 5% of petroleum usage is tyrannical and unjust I oppose this plan in its entirety. It is a shame a lawsuit will be required to force you all to do your d-------- jobs. Rich Davenport Tonawanda, NY | ||
| Gary ,Schaub | I believe that we should address OVER TIME options to be more efficient with our energy sources, BUT, putting time restraints on our existing energy sources is ludicrous! One of the proposals was for burning fire wood for heat. That is available to EVERY landowner and is used by thousands of people. To tell us that we can no longer use this resource is such a non issue when you look at what 3rd world countries are doing every year with their energy consumption, our fire wood is not really significant at all. I remember the oil spills and hearing how the ocean would be destroyed for years and 3 years later, hardly a trace of what happened. Nature takes care of itself and the one thing that can screw it up is when we get involved and think we can change our atmosphere, just my 2 cents. Again, use common sense in making decisions without ruining peoples lives. | ||
| Jack,Kalka | There isn't enough electric power to support eliminating fossil fuels. And what is going to happen to the stack of windmill blades in Bath?? What will the farmers do? Who will replace the gasoline equipment they use?? What happens in 20 to 30yrs when solar fields start failing?? Too many unanswered questions to support an all electric envrionment!! | ||
| Mark,Thielking | Town of Bedford, NY | While state codes will likely eliminate fossil fuel use in New Construction, the existing buildings of NYS, which represent the largest single source of emissions, are a massive challenge that requires new thinking and a dedicated funding source due to the sheer scale of the opportunity and associated upfront costs. While the recommendations from the council are sound, we feel additions to the recommendations are warranted as the sheer scale of this once in a generation opportunity will overwhelm more limited, business as usual approaches. In addition, as local governments are being asked to enact new building codes and set policies such as benchmarking existing buildings, requiring electrification of new buildings, accelerating solar deployment, and promoting resilience, a sustainable funding stream to bolster local govt capacity would be required so as not to divert funding and resources from existing duties and responsibilities. Please see the attached document for the full set of comments. Thank you for your work in this most important endeavor. | |
| MARK,ADAMS | I am in the industry, have been for 25 years, with WAP, and with Honeywell overseeing the NYSERDA run E/Star program. I find the whole electrification idea ridiculous to put it bluntly. From switching homes to CCASHP, to charging ports for cars. CCASHP (cold climate air source heat pumps) will only work to a certain degree range of temp. Below 20 you need auxiliary backup from a carbon base, or electric heat resistance which now increases the load for electric. The grid is not going to handle all of this change. The changes that we make over the time frames reported are not going to make a hill of beans if the rest of the WORLD doesn't do the same; China, Russia, Africa, N.Korea, Canada, Australia. I can get people with impressive degrees to say the exact opposite to what the so called experts are saying now about the plan to reduce the carbon footprint. Do you remember what NOAH did years ago in order to get more funding, then came out and said they had falsified the data. WAY TOO MUCH, TOO FAST !!! THE ARPA PROGRAM IS A JOKE, I'M LIVING IN IT !!! | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the CAC: In the final scoping plan the 3600 members of 350Brooklyn urge you to exhibit considerable wariness about untried and expensive approaches to de-carbonizing our economy. The scoping plan should have even more skepticism about untried solutions than it does. Hydrogen and Renewable Natural Gas are likely to have very narrow applicability to electricity generation. The cost of building production and transmission systems to supply power plants would be enormous, and this is money better spent on building large-scale renewables. Note that hydrogen cannot be transported through the current network of pipelines in much of NYS as it is too corrosive. Biomass and Bioenergy both release carbon dioxide, the very greenhouse gas the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is designed to eliminate. Waste-to-Energy threatens local areas with co-pollutants, worsening air quality and local health. The Draft Scoping Plan should concentrate on wind, solar, battery storage, and efficiency as solutions to New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-leader | |
| June,Lunde | Farmer/ Landowner | As a born and raised New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. I used to own a farm, I still own the land but it was time to retire. My concern is that the draft scoping plan does not adequately consider the challenges faced by farmers. Does an electric tractor exist? And if it does, does it have the power, durability, and ability to do all of the same work a gas or diesel powered tractor could do? Who is going to help farmer pay for new equipment or pay off loans on equipment that is now outdate or banned? What about the price of land being driven up as solar companies seek to buy up land to meet the demand for new electric power sources? The draft scoping plan does not answer these questions. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | |
| Tracy,Levy | Thank you for accepting my comments. I live on the North Fork of Long Island and am bombarded with noise from low flying aircraft, many of them helicopters from NYC bringing people, who have the means to avoid traffic, to the Hamptons. My home is adjacent to a farm that grows corn, cabbage, cauliflower and other vegetables. The emissions and other pollutants coming from the helicopters, not to mention the parade of private jets into Westhampton Beach now, represent a disrespectful pattern of noise, but more broadly, total disregard for the food chain. I am a supporter of true clean energy: nuclear energy. The war on natural gas has to end. Renewables are unreliable, deliver the worst bang for the buck per acre of land or sea necessary to site them and require hugely expensive interconnections to the existing grid. The "Green" movement is misguided in its quest. The war on all Fossil Fuels has to end, but especially on natural gas, which is a clean-burning and plentiful American resource. Don't be limousine liberals and sip rose' wine at some party you flew private to. Stop disrespecting those of us who pay taxes, deserve peace and quiet and who want American energy independence now. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the CAC: Concerning the final scoping plan, the 3600 members of 350Brooklyn make the following strong recommendation: The Draft Scoping Plan should ensure that the burdens placed on Disadvantaged Communities by existing fossil fuel plants are central to all planning. The Scoping Plan says that, when identifying fossil fuel plants that should be decommissioned, Disadvantaged Communities “should be considered.” (p. 156) The language should be stronger. Communities that are disadvantaged often have multiple sources of significant pollution, not just their local power plant. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn recommend that the following be added to the final scoping plan: The Draft Scoping Plan should recommend that utilities pay solar suppliers to the grid at a rate that supports the expansion of small-scale solar. The Scoping Plan mentions rate design in the context of Distributed Generation but this section needs to support small building owners with solar on their roofs more explicitly. Owners of small solar arrays sell their excess electricity back to their local utility in the summer. The price per kilowatt-hour that they get from the utility makes a real difference to how affordable installing solar is. Individual building owners are an important resource here and NYS needs many, many small solar adopters as well as the larger arrays that are emphasized in the Scoping Plan. The Draft Scoping Plan should develop strategies for putting solar on warehouses. The Scoping Plan mentions the potential for expanding solar to parking lots (161.) Please consider adding warehouses to this recommendation. There are acres and acres of flat-roofed warehouses in Brooklyn and elsewhere in the state. What engineering adaptations could be made so they can add solar without threatening the integrity of their roofs. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim, co-leader | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Members of the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn ask that you strengthen the following recommendations in the final scoping plan: The Draft Scoping Plan should strengthen the commitment to no new fossil fuel plants.The Plan mentions the need to phase out fossil fuel electricity-generating plants over time but there should be a firm commitment to a moratorium on all new fossil fuel plants. Moreover, plant owners should be responsible for site remediation when plants are closed. Should a power plant be retrofitted to prolong its life for reasons of grid stability, any new permits should specify that the extension of plant use will be temporary. The conditions of the new permit should also specify that the cost of such retrofitting will be the responsibility of the owner, not ratepayers, should the plant become a stranded asset when it is eventually closed. In addition, language in the Plan should make a stronger commitment to clean energy job training in every community where a plant closes. The Draft Scoping Plan offers good ideas for building community acceptance of clean energy siting, but could be expanded. The advantages that the transition to renewable energy economy offers to the economy, particularly in the dramatic growth in good jobs should get more emphasis. We also recommend that the Plan add attention to educating the press, especially local outlets throughout the state, as these are a significant source of information about local issues like clean energy siting. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim, Co-Leader | |
| Gary ,Bender | Healthcare worker | As a born and raised New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. My concern is this: I have been a practicing RN in NY my entire career, over 30 years. I have seen first hand how NYS mandates, even those that are well intentioned, have decimated our healthcare staffing ratios. In my department alone we have went from 15 employees a year ago to 4 due to healthcare staff choosing to move to other states. The mandate to move from gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles will impose another increased cost of living, another headaches to deal with for healthcare staff, and another reason to push more people over the edge and have them leave our NYS healthcare workforce. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | |
| Gregory,Goings | Self | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport. In my Brooklyn neighborhood on the south side of Prospect Park, there are helicopters flying right over the park, often at altitudes low enough that I can see the details of the aircraft. My neighbors and I are out in the park to get away from more stressful surroundings, but instead we have to put up with the chattering noise of these useless machines commandeered by rich Hamptonites and bored tourists. There are days when they pass over almost every 10-15 minutes. Why are laws set up to allow people like that to abuse the general population? | |
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the Climate Action Council: The 3600 members of 350Brooklyn would like to commend you on the following recommendation in the draft scoping plan, and recommends strongly that you retain this in the final draft. The Draft Scoping Plan supports fully phasing out SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) and replacing it with a zero emissions alternative. While the Plan recognizes that utilities in New York State have worked to reduce the leakage of SF6, a substance used as an insulator in electrical systems, SF6 is so potent a greenhouse gas (17,000 times more potent than CO2s over a 20 year span) that eliminating it altogether has real urgency. Thank you, Sara S. Gronim Co-Leader | |
| Marcus ,Yanagihara | As a New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. I am a working professional and competitive athlete. I frequently travel for work, and for competitive training in Lake Placid. Simply put, my professional and personal life would not be the same without reliable transportation capable of handling long trips. If I need to stop to charge a vehicle for example, I will not have time in my schedule to travel to Lake Placid for speed skating competitions and practice. This will negatively impact not only my life but also many local economies in New York State. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | ||
| Sara,Gronim | 350Brooklyn | To the CAC: The 3600 members of 350Brookly supports a number of aspects of the chapter on electricity, including the following: The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the need for improving our electrical transmission and distribution system. Upgrading our electricity transmission and distribution system to allow for the maximum use of renewable energy sources is crucial to this transformation in our electricity system. Flexibility, reliability, and affordability should be key considerations.The Scoping Plan also calls for transparency and public information regarding reliability. And it calls for prioritizing historically burdened communities when improving storm-hardening infrastructure. The Draft Scoping Plan recognizes the central role of energy storage. The Draft Scoping Plan recommends major investments in energy storage. The Plan also emphasizes the sheer volume of storage NYS will need by 2040 when the grid will be 100% carbon-free. Its identification of a potential shortfall of 15-25 gigawatts of storage capacity by that date highlights the urgency with which concrete plans for installing storage state-wide must be instituted. The Draft Scoping Plan advocates for the promotion of Community Choice Aggregation. With CCA entire communities enter into contracts with an electricity provider, with the provision that individual consumers within a community can opt out of participation. The Plan points out that NYS communities who have set up CCAs to date have overwhelmingly chosen renewables as their source, thus supporting the expansion of renewable generation, and have generally paid less for their electricity than they otherwise would have. Sincerely, Sara S. Gronim, Co-Leader | |
| Gareth,Price | With the Supreme Court neutering the EPA, now is the time that New York must take the lead in implementing the guidance of 13,000 scientists in the IPCC's IR6 part 3 report to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Decades of subsidies and breaks for fossil fuels have suppressed the market for development of alternative technologies. Alternative energy must be elevated and supported to accelerate development and the point at which renewable energy is cheaper and more efficient than fossil sources. Citizens should be encouraged via rebates to accelerate this switch. The fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to keep their profits, you must resist them and do what is right for New York and for the world. | ||
| Tracey,Cook | Switching to all electric will not only overload the grid, but be out of reach economically for all of the people. There are for more important things to be worked on. Stop your overreaching. | ||
| Tyler ,Avery | As a young New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. I have worked as a mechanic my whole life. Selling parts, fixing cars, utilizing my experience to save people money and ensure reliable transportation. The draft scoping plan does not address the severe lack of experience when it comes to repairing electric vehicles and how that will put New Yorkers at risk. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | ||
| Brianna,Bender | As a young New Yorker, I applaud the state for attempting to address climate change and emissions issues. However, the draft scoping plan in its current form currently lacks answers as to the availability of electric vehicles and requisite parts. The plan also does not address how everyday New Yorkers are supposed to pay for this transition. In that sense the plan is seriously flawed and I urge you to reject it. | ||
| Laurie,Agle | I understand the desire to move toward a more energy conscience society, but as most of us know the power grid does not have the capacity to go completely electric. And let's face it, we will never change everyone in the US to believe that that's the way to go. What is wrong with moving toward high- bred vehicles first? Not everyone is in the position to just flip a switch and completely use electric for heating and to power their vehicle. While you all expect us to rely solely on electric, have you? Our government officials found it perfectly acceptable to fly back and forth from their state to Washington or to other countries for that matter, (and on the taxpayers some no less) but we should all spend money we don't have on something that is never going to completely work anyway. If you really want to help our environment how about working on reducing our landfills! We have become such a throw away society. There won't be any room for all the batteries from your electric cars if you don't address that now. | ||
| Catherine,McMaster | This is just another insane overreach by the State of NY. I have looked at installation costs of geothermal systems and the prices are outrageous. If you're a homeowner who prefers to keep your home at a much cooler temp at night in the summer and winter, setting back your heat pump more than 5 degrees, the heating costs are higher and put a strain on the system. Also, not everyone has the land space or money to install a geothermal unit. Nothing is addressed regarding if you have a house in an area where there is bedrock or if you're in an area where structurally a thermal pump can't be installed. What this tells me is that my time in NY will be limited and we will plan to move out whenever we can to a less restrictive state. | ||
| Jennifer ,Kuhn | This plan needs to be more thoroughly thought out. If you ban wood except for in emergencies, no one will cut wood anymore and supply will be unavailable in emergencies. Financially this will cause hardships to home owners, business owners and the power companies won't have adequate infrastructure by these dates. | ||
| Krista,B | This plan is incredibly too aggressive for the current state of the economy and for every New Yorker in general. This will drive more people to leave our state in droves. It’s not affordable and drastically unrealistic. The falsehoods that natural gases are a poor choice to use are exaggerated at best. This is incredibly out of touch with New Yorkers. | ||
| Kimberly,Bragg | This proposal is not well timed (2024 is right around the corner), too burdensome to comply with, and I am concerned about job losses in the industry affected by this proposal. Wind energy sounds like a great idea but the cost effectiveness (among other aspects) is questionable. | ||
| Katie,Baildon | Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York | ||
| Chris,LaRoe | Brookfield Renewable | Please see the uploaded comments submitted by Brookfield Renewable on the Draft Scoping Plan. Thank you. | |
| Donna,Phillips | I'm commenting because of my concerns over these proposals. The cost to implement this plan will be enormous to businesses and individuals. These do not outweigh the benefits to NY residents who already have a clean emissions rate in comparison to the US and worldwide and are already suffering under financial loads that are increasing. I'm very concerned about the harms to the environment due electric vehicle batteries, solar batteries and windmills . The sourcing of these batteries elements and the production that is mainly in China is a concern. China has made no changes in their practices and have contributed tremendously to pollution. As they are the main source for the batteries this makes no sense. Also, the battery cost and the waste when they are spent have a negative environmental impact. Windmills kill birds and cause noise pollution. Another concern is not having reliable heat in the winter. If the state of Texas can have a long term outage due to these energy sources that caused deaths and huge financial damage imagine the impact in our state. Another problem is, how are the elderly, the disabled and rural residents expected to depend on walking and bicycling to accomplish tasks of daily living? I believe this proposal is way too sweeping and aggressive to be accomplished in a beneficial and humane manner and needs a complete overhaul or scrap it. I'm sad to say that many more will leave our state if this is implemented and it will cause more damage to a once beautiful place to live that is already on downward slide. | ||
| Elaine ,Blum | I do not agree with the push for electric vehicles and all electric utilities. They are time consuming to charge and there is no way there would be ample electricity for all. The cost to the consumer would be huge! | ||
| Kevin,Von Vreckin | The time frames outlined in this plan are way too aggressive. There are many unknowns. For Example is the power grid in NY going to be able to handle this additional load? I highly doubt it. The condition of our Electrical infrastructure has degraded over the last 15+ years due to deregulation. An additional example the electrical energy required to change the ground water temperature from 40 degrees F (avg water temp in winter in WNY) to 100 degrees F using an instant hot water system for showering, washing clothes, Dishes etc. is well beyond the service abilities(Amperage) in most homes. Think about this - During a cold stormy winter night in WNY when the power goes out (as it will do). Many people can have hot water, cook, run private generators using Natural gas to have some electricity in survive. If we change everything to electric that all changes. I think if this bill passes you are essentially chasing business and people out of NY. It will become too expensive to live here. I often tell the story - about 10 years ago the environmentalists said we have to get rid of paper bags and go to plastic ones to save trees, then 10 years later all of sudden they realized plastic did not degrade the same way as paper, so not we had to get rid of plastic bag. Our ancestors were not so dumb after all, paper bags disintegrate and become food for new tree 9making it a renewable resource. We need to step back, think about long & short term ramifications, consider the various climate zones, play out use cases with winter storms/power outages, consider the economic impact on both businesses/individual families and enact a plan that is attainable in a sensible time frame with solutions available (not a someone will figure it out in the future). Another consideration should be survival if a nation state or someone else decided to use an Electro-Magnetic Pulse type weapon to destroy/limit our ability to generate/store electrical power. | ||
| Maxine,Menshon | I believe the state is moving too fast on this climate plan - you are shoving it down the throats of New Yorkers. Just think of how many people fill their gas tank up every week-it takes less than 5 minutes to fill your gas tank- it will take several hours to charge an electric car. And where do they do it? And if you have children who have their own cars - so now you have multiple cars that need charging? I from what I understand, the batteries in these vehicles are only good for 6 years - and they cannot be recycled and if they catch on fire - which they are prone to do - the fire is very toxic. Talk about a climate emergency. The climate change activists have been screaming the sky is falling for decades, yet none of their claims have been realized. It's virtue signaling at its finest. As the politicians fly in private jets - creating more emission's, lecturing the little people on what they should be doing. This will push more people to leave NY. The cost of electricity will be outrageous - they people will be forced choose whether to pay to heat their house or do they pay to charge the car or cook dinner? And what about the rolling electrical outages this is cause? Stop this madness now. | ||
| Steve,Griffin | Finger Lakes Economic Development Center | The State MUST reconsider the tight timelines associated with the plan to move away from fossil fuels. A The "Power Trends 2022" report from the New York Independent System Operators repeatedly states major concerns about near term and future electric grid reliability. New York State policy is actively decommissioning current power generation facilities at a faster rate then new sources of energy are built leading to system insecurities with the power grid. Below are just two references from NYISO about their concerns (a copy of the full report is attached): "The pace of deactivation of current fossil-fueled resources must not exceed the pace of development and deployment of new, non-emitting electricity supply resources that can provide the reliability services that New Yorkers expect. This means that fossil-fuel resources will be needed to maintain reliability until non-emitting dispatchable resources can effectively replace them." "Simply deactivating existing generation without having new resources on the system capable of providing comparable attributes risks the ability to maintain a reliable electric system. To facilitate a successful transition, to weather-dependent resources, we must build and interconnect technologies that fill in reliability gaps and mimic the reliability attributes of our existing fleet of generation." The move to carbon free power makes sense for our climate but it CANNOT be done at such a pace that it puts the safety of its residents and businesses at risk. | |
| Len,Zima | beyond the trends to take advantage of natural means and our proximity to the power generating capability of Niagara Falls and with all the power distribution infrastructure and agreements at hand....this natural resource should be reconsidered for modernization in all aspect of the energy / climate concerns to provide a greater benefit for our area than they presently are arranged for and still support others beyond the geography at hand with more efficient power distribution....more complexity in the complex social / economic arrangements of modern life but should change in any plan to meet the unpredictable future...beyond these parochial points, and the social morose of our time a commitment to family pursuit of knowledge and working, studying and funding the sciences of physics beyond the understanding of today should include support of the more risky and dangerous atomic solutions or those beyond mother Earth!.... this is a lacking forum for tabling this or any issue ....that's why we have elected officials who should be burning the midnight oil in light of decision making all the associated problems Mr Gallivan | ||
| Mark,Libraire | I get that we want to reduce our carbon footprint, but I don't want any Government entity telling me what kind of car or appliance I can buy. If you want to stop people from leaving the state then you better wake up. The change to more green power will happen but it must be phased in gradually not shoved down our throats. Until we stop other large countries from polluting it really isn't going to matter that much in the big scheme of things. I don't know for sure but the electric grid probably couldn't handle all the extra capacity needed for this not well thought out plan. Please stop this nonsense and let things play out gradually as they will. Don't tell me how to live my life!!!!!! Mark Libraire | ||
| Debora,Harris | converting to all electric appliances is not feasible----current infrastructure could not handle==we have brown outs now in summer when people are using air conditioning. Forcing people to convert to electric is financial hardship==for me I would have to have my electric rewired and updated to support the added appliances--natural gas appliances are efficient use of energy already---who will pay to help low income make the changes??? what happpens when power goes out due to storms--no generators allowed? this is a stupid idea | ||
| Todd,Fetzer | limiting the use of natural gas and propane is the most absurd thing I've ever heard! There is no way that we can keep up the infrastructure running all electric (do the math) The average house in New York has a 200 amp Electrical service most houses now are heated with clean burning either natural gas or propane once you switch to electric heat and all electric appliances you would need a minimum of a 400 amp service Times a number of houses and businesses in New York State the grid cannot support a hot day right now ,no one likes nuclear, no one likes Cole how are you going to make enough power and how are you Going go get it to the people. Right now if the power goes out we can heat our homes and produce electricity on our personal generators. This legislation needs to be stopped now it makes zero sense even for the climate. Todd Fetzer | ||
| A,Cottrell | This is just one more example of overreaching by the state government in controlling the people/taxpayers of this state. The restriction of the use of natural gas will not only drive businesses out of this state but will do a fine job in driving residents out as well. We cannot turn the state into one that is totally dependent on electricity, because electricity needs to be generated by the use of fossil fuels or natural gas. Anything that we produce, whether it be food and dairy products for the table or computer chips or anything else, involves the use of natural gas. | ||
| Donald ,Meissner | This is all BS. Climate change is a manufactured issue created by the far left in this state. Another example of government making laws for things that don’t exist. When will New Yorkers wake up and vote these idiots out of office. | ||
| Bob,Oursler | The time is now to stop this insanity. The idea of trading something that works and costs less for something that is not fully developed, does not work, and has a price tag beyond the imagination is not only foolish but immoral. The onerous cost of the fantasy of playing God in an attempt to control the weather by not using readily available low cost environmentally friendly options like natural gas and petroleum will destroy the economy of this state and country. How many of the items we use everyday are impossible to make without the use of products from the petrochemical industry? Is it really a good idea to go to war against fossil fuels and eliminate plastic, synthetics, and a list of products to large to name? There will be no need for cars or ability to manufacture them when the raw material is unavailable to make tires, seats, or the roads to drive on. If you agree with this proposal you are exercising blind faith in an unproven, very expensive remedy for a crisis that doesn't even exist. China, Russia, India and other global rivals will celebrate the stupidity of the suicidal action by the cult of fanatics who are determined to kill the viability of this country. If you want to live in shack with solar or wind power and no man made materials from petrochemical sources (not sure how you can do both at the same time) then go ahead. Just don't ask me and other unbelievers who haven't joined the lunatic cult of climatista to pay for your short sighted untenable experiment. | ||
| Deb,Marshall | alex | Our grid cannot handle the power needed as it is and to force/ restrict the use of natural gas in new buildings, new vehicles etc just proves to me how short sighted these applications if accepted are! Electric vehicles are not environmentally friendly! What happens to the batteries when the vehicle cannot be repaired? Charging stations? Those batteries cannot be reultilized! I am hoping that careful consideration will be given to the long range effects if these are passed and put into effect! The power grid cannot handle this---look at California with its brown outs! | |
| Carolyn,Zyloney | I am strongly in support of this plan. Fighting climate change is urgent. My only comment would be that you should try to move up the timeframe for the community renewable energy and geothermal programs and further incentivize people to join them. | ||
| Pat,Armstrong | I’m all for a greener technology but if it’s forced on the the public. | ||
| Priscilla,Carter | I'm pretty sure that if you do another study on emissions, you would find that New York State's emissions have been greatly reduced due to the number of people leaving to move to other states, because of high taxes which fund nonsense like this. Sincerely, Priscilla Carter B.S., Environmental Studies, SUNY ESF M.L.A. - SUNY ESF | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | The Integration Analysis and the Draft Scoping Plan zero-emissions electric grid transition plan depend on a long-duration, dispatchable, and emission-free resource that does not exist. This comment explains why there are reasons to believe that a commercially viable and affordable resource like this may never be developed. I conclude that the Final Scoping Plan must include a conditional implementation schedule based on the availability of this resource. | |
| Dorothy,Reddy | New York State Association of Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, Contractors, Inc. | ||
| Michael ,O’Connor | Natural gas is clean burning, plentiful and affordable. Why would we force people to switch to more expensive sources especially in light of the recession we’re in right now. | ||
| Joseph,Czechowski | I believe this plan is yet another attempt by New York to try and be first to implement change without proper thought and consideration as to the consequences this action may have on the very State and its residents that the proposal is intending to "improve". This proposal attempts to implement undue burdens and requirements on NYS taxpayers without consideration to the fact that the infrastructure to accomplish these requirements does not and will not exist in time for the proposed deadlines to be met. Pushing for all-electric homes, businesses, cars, etc. without the technology and infrastructure to support them is a recipe for disaster. The increased costs associated with these factors will drive already strained taxpayers to the brink of financial ruin, and will complete the State's consistent attempt to alienate the middle class and business owners to the point where they are forced to leave under the misguided, oppressive heel of the NYS "leadership". Experts in the energy field have said previously that the electrical infrastructure cannot support these "green" requirements for full-electric homes and businesses. The result will be power outages, brownouts and inadequate infrastructure to allow for new development in local municipalities that rely on the tax revenue from those improvements to survive. In order for this initiative to be successful, a reliable infrastructure must be constructed to prove and proven to be adequate and reliable BEFORE any mandates are set forth for phasing out carbon-based consumption. How will the urban areas of the state (NYC especially) be able to accommodate the requirements for solar independence? Will the city be exempt from the requirements, once again leaving the suburban areas of the state to shoulder the burden? If this initiative is implemented, NYS leaders can rest assured that the sound they hear is the loud roar of New Yorkers fleeing the state in their gas-powered vehicles to states with more common sense. | ||
| LArry,Coppola | This "plan" has just been made available to the Americans of this Sate of New York? And now we have one day to review and comment on what we think of the plan? The plan must be made available to all who live here before any further action is taken. Electric vehicles have a limited range and are way too expensive to manufacture, maintain, charge and dispose of. All intricate details and verifiable research results must be explained to and processed by all who live in New York. All who live here must vote on all aspects of this "proposal". Right now there is no consent to move forward from Americans who live here. | ||
| Janice M,Johnson | Mimi's Posies | I am writing in hopes that we as a state will take a lead in protecting our environment for future generations. I am old enough to remember the gas shortages of the 1970s. Unlike many of my generation I allowed it to change my way of doing things. Since then I have always been very conscious of how much energy I use. Before my car leaves the driveway I have a plan on the most efficient way of running my errands to not do any more driving than necessary. I purchase cars that get good gas mileage, use public transportation and walk if I can. Through the years I have composted, recycled, and watched my utility usage consistently. Besides being respectful of our planet's resources it is a more economical way of living. I am not writing this to toot my own horn but to say we all need to be mindful of what we do. In reality all of my efforts have probably not made much of a difference other than my 6 children noticed and are all passionate about the world we live in and trying to do their part to improve it's condition. Even though it would be good for all individuals to take more care in how they use our resources it is necessary for businesses to step up and do their part. For too many years we have used this earth's resources at an alarming rate. This is not sustainable in any fashion and if we don't stop immediately I fear that we are already reaching the point of no return. Our nation is experiencing major disasters on a regular basis now. Flooding, wildfires and water shortages that are unprecedented. Even now with gas prices at an all time high we are not changing our behaviors. My hope is that our state will take the lead in really doing something about protecting our environment. We need to come up with a plan that works and that is beneficial to all of our citizens including our indigenous community. We need to listen to not only our scientists but also to everyday Americans on what they need and what will work. Thank you for your time, Janice Johnson | |
| Merri Lee,Debany | I support this document. The actions of New York State are even more important now that the EPA has been compromised and it’s ability to move forward with climate change action. New York must be forward thinking and aggressive and attractions in order to have A meaningful effect on climate. This plan has addressed significant issues for disadvantaged communities where often times Burdens are disproportionally placed. | ||
| Roger ,Gray | 5.1 New York’s Climate Vision (p.27) The NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan is a comprehensive analysis of what NYS can do within its borders to mitigate, and help reverse, the impacts of CO2 on global warming. However, of course, global warming is a global problem. Section 5.1 notes that “State government action alone will not be enough.” To emphasize that this is a global problem which all nations must work cooperatively to address, the Scoping Document should include a section addressing the global nature of the problem. For example, the Scoping Plan should propose that New York State establish relations with a “sister state” in South America (similar to the ‘Sister City” concept) to jointly promote forest carbon sequestration, and international wildlife connectivity. 11. Transportation (p.94) Surprisingly, this section only provides a brief nod to improving rail service as a means of improving mass transit / public transportation (p.107). There should be a much more extensive analysis of the means and benefits of improving rail service in the State, as a means of reducing the overall carbon footprint of transportation. (Trains are the ultimate driverless cars!). The attendees at COP26 made a big show of arriving in Glasgow by train, emphasizing that a passenger's carbon footprint is approximately 7 times less for travel by train vs traveling the same distance by airplane. Comparisons for transporting freight by diesel truck vs by train would also show significant reductions in carbon footprint. New York has a large network of unused former railbeds. The Scoping Plan should emphasize the environmental benefits of rail travel. | ||
| Dolores ,Rice | There is no mention of the ramifications of your proposals relating to the reality of winter life in northern New York. I oppose every chapter, and each appendix of the CAC Draft Scoping Plan. New York’s diversity of power sources provides a measure of resiliency for the State. Heavy reliance on intermittent, weather dependent generation sources like wind and solar is not rational. The scary part is that you think it is. Stop shuttering nuclear - instead build more of it. | ||
| Mary,Refermat | Elimination of any type of gas, whether it be natural or petroleum is absurd and to deny residents , contractors and others the right to choose what type of fuel or emery they want is not for the government to decide! I’m totally suck if all the control and mandates are being implemented on us! | ||
| Brian,Harrison | I DO NOT support banning the use of natural gas . Natural gas is an economical resource for heating and cooking. It is a bad decision to ban natural gas. | ||
| Salvatore,Tulumello | As you know, most of our electricity is derived from coal, natural gas and nuclear power. Forcing us to not use those resources will devastate our economy. Its not sustainable and the powers that be know this. The people will not stand for this. It would be wise to reconsider the NY initiatives. | ||
| catherine,kutas | urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Michele,Ladowski | Vote no. Leave our climate alone. | ||
| Bryan,Oneill | RE: Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Dear Climate Action Council: My name is Bryan Oneill and I am a member of IBEW Local Union 3, and live in Flushing, NY. Thank you to the Council for taking the time to listen to those of us impacted by this Plan. I am not against the goals of the CLCPA and the State. Now is the time to act to prevent any further damage from climate change. Unfortunately, I do not think this Plan is the way to reach those goals. Some of my concerns include: 1. It will have a negative impact on good jobs in the utility industry and the communities they support. These are union jobs with good wages, benefits, and safe working conditions. The ripple effect of job loss has a long-lasting impact as unfortunately seen across New York State with closed coal, nuclear, and manufacturing plants through the years. 2. The timeline needs to be adjusted and more research and development is necessary. We do not have the wind, solar, and battery storage required to produce and store the energy needed as we increase electricity needs. Natural gas has a significant role in the energy portfolio until adequate long-term solutions are developed. Long-term storage, renewable natural gas, and hydrogen are potential solutions, but not the only solutions. 3. Aggressive buildout of the transmission and distribution system must be a priority. This is necessary to build out renewable energy, transform our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuel to electric, and heat our homes properly in the winter. 4. Estimates show a cost of $20,000-$50,000 dollars to convert a single-family home or small business from natural gas to electric energy. We are seeing record inflation, and New Yorkers already bear a high cost of living. Exact costs and information should be provided to taxpayers/ratepayers prior to any changes made under the CLCPA. New York’s success will depend on collaboration with all stakeholders, including the IBEW. Sincerely, Bryan Oneill | ||
| Priscilla,Carter | I am against all of this nonsense. Please stop trying to control people's actions and activities based on your pie-in-the-sky ideas and proclamations that the world is ending. "Approximately 1 to 2 million efficient homes will need to be electrified with heat pumps by 2030. Approximately 3 million zero-emission vehicles (predominantly battery electric) will need to be sold by 2030." Seriously? This is not the role of government. There is just too much craziness being put forth in your ideas to comment on. | ||
| Michael ,McGlynn | The draft Scoping Plan recognizes the significant natural carbon sequestration and storage characteristics of soils, plants and trees to achieving GHG reductions. The 2021 law, Soil Health and Climate Resiliency Act, enacts the Soil Health Initiative with the state agriculture department as lead agency to mitigate climate change, improve soil health and water quality, and resiliency of agricultural production. The government-academic-industry collaboration will accelerate current research of the mechanical and chemical processes, including carbon sequestration and storage, of basalt rock amendment to agricultural soils. The extension of the state agriculture department and the soil and water conservation committee with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service can apply to the federal Bureau of Mined Lands for a “public-interest” permit to mine various types of basalt rock to determine compatibility with the various soils throughout the state. Cornell University, a federal land-grant college, could partner with the State University of New York Agriculture and Technical colleges and other institutions of higher education to coordinate applications to the Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences of the National Science Foundation for money to develop a science-based infrastructure of instruments and workforce to establish best management practices for sustainable fertile soils. Implementation of science-based soils tests by agriculture and silviculture land-owners to determine quality and quantity of basalt rock amendments recorded within accredited conservation plans can document quantity of carbon sequestration and storage to qualify for carbon tax credits. The Soil Health Initiative needs inclusion in the Scoping Plan with administration of the government-academic-industry model to maximize cooperation for terrestrial carbon sequestration and carbon storage to improve sustainable fertility of soils for our essential human rights. | ||
| Chelsea,Villalba | Hudson River Sloop Clearwater; Stony Brook University | New York MUST ensure land, environmental, and climate justice by investing time and resources into land restitution for Indigenous people and communities. The State MUST also deeply invest in the protections and rights of migrant workers who feed and farm to keep food on our tables. The State MUST implement systems of accountability to ensure climate and environmental justice takes precedence now and in the future, especially for low- and middle-class, and/or Black and Brown individuals and communities. New York MUST prioritize climate and environmental education investments and curriculums to ensure future generations of leaders are equipped with accurate knowledge to protect the environment and develop sustainable achievements. New York MUST invest more resources into public transportation and social infrastructure. Car dependency at its current level is unsustainable, making these gas emissions preventable with a strong marketing campaign and cultural shift toward community transit. | |
| Teresa,McCaskie | Southold Town Aircraft Noise Committee | Given NY is facing threats of even more climate change caused catastrophes, as we experienced during Hurricanes Sandy and Ida, every source of NY transportation pollution must be held to a new and urgent environmental standard. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing, commuter and charter flights is an injustice to all New Yorkers. | |
| Laura,Kuhn | I feel the government of New York has no right to tell the citizens of New York how they should heat their homes, what appliances they can buy or what car they should drive. I also feel they should not put a further burden on farmers to obtain net zero carbon emissions when the job of being a farmer is already a razor edge profit industry. The same holds for manufacturers. Also, you want to transition from fossil fuels but you want to limit nuclear fuel which is one of the cleanest sources of energy that exists. This makes absolutely no sense. Wind and solar power are not dependable enough to replace fossil fuels. Finally, New York State can place all these lofty goals on New York citizens, municipalities, farmers and industries but other nations like China and India will continue to pollute the environment by using unclean fossil fuel energy sources. Until that is address none of the proposed energy changes presented in this plan will make a difference. | ||
| Jeff,Darling | I am glad to see ambitious goals set. Personally, I am frustrated that NY’s incentives led us to update our heating system to a high efficiency natural gas system versus an electric system with a heat pump, fifteen years ago. We now have a perfectly sound system, but would rather be heating with clean sources of electricity. Educating consumers, building infrastructure, taking away subsidies foe fossil fuel industries and providing incentives for consumers to make more environmentally friendly choices will all be necessary for these goals to be met. | ||
| Deepta,Gupta | |||
| Deepta,Gupta | |||
| Deepta,Gupta | |||
| Deepta,Gupta | |||
| Tina,Lieberman | Zero Waste Capital District; Education Chair Sierra Club Hudson-Mohawk Group | Please strengthen these parts of the Waste Plan: 1) Sewage sludge (aka bio-solids)that is contaminated with PFAS is a waste that has no beneficial use due to toxicity. Therefore, sewage sludge must never be mixed and co-digested with other organics for the purpose of creating compost to be applied to land for farming gardening or landscaping. In Maine high PFAS concentrations have been found on farms and in farm wells as a result of sewage sludge that was land applied as fertilizer. As a result, some farmers can no longer produce crops or livestock products for market. The Maine legislature is considering establishing a $100 million fund to compensate affected farmers. 2) DEC should be directed to conduct a study comparing single stream and dual stream recycling, documenting contamination rates and marketability of different types of recycling. 3) The mandatory diversion of organic waste (food scraps and yard waste) from the landfill must be implemented at the household level in order to keep all food scraps and yard waste out of landfills. Organics must not be allowed to be put in landfills. 4) The bottle redemption program must be expanded to more glass and plastic containers with at least an 100% increase in the refund. 5) More reuse and repair centers should be encouraged and established throughout the state - non-profits and small businesses should be incentivized to help start these. 6) Biogas captured from waste should be only used for power on site and there should be no funding to build transmission infrastructure for biogas. 7) Waste incineration is incompatible with climate action. It is unhealthy, and inefficient. Incinerating waste for energy should never be considered green or sustainable. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views and submit comments. | |
| Louis,Russo | You are going too far, too fast! Who do you expect to pay for all this infrastructure change. Currently, natural gas is the least expensive (note I didn't say cheap, none of them are cheap) way to heat your house. It is very intuitive for cooking, turn down the fire and the soup stops boiling over. With an electric range, you have to move the hot soup somewhere quickly. Currently, we don't have a reliable electric grid. There are minor outages regularly. What will happen when everyone plugs in their car after work and starts cooking. You pay lip service to justice for low income communities, but they are the least able to pay increased costs. Your plan seems to include higher DMV fees to keep your fossil fuel car on the road, and regulations to prevent replacement of existing gas appliances. Are you aware of what an electrician charges to show up for a 240V line for a stove? What about a plug for your electric vehicle? Do you expect the landlord to retrofit the property to the tune of $20000 or more and not increase the rent? I own a 2-story house built in the 20's. I'm sure I would need all new wiring to support electric baseboard heating, necessitating replastering my original plaster and lathe construction walls. I shudder to think of what it would cost to dig up my back yard deep enough for pipes for a heat pump installation. Then, according to your plan, I would later have to change the HFCs to a new less global warming fluid later. I still would need an extra source of heat in the winter, it drops below freezing in Buffalo quite a bit. Guys, I already have a mortgage, I don't need another one on top of it. Your plan is trying to increase the price of fossil fuels to force people to switch. You should instead be finding ways to make electricity and electric cars less expensive than fossil fueled infrastructure. Then you need to come up with grants, not loans, to enable people to afford the change. | ||
| Jack,Kellogg | The authors must have their heads in a vacuum. They have absolutely no idea of what it takes for commerce to thrive or even survive. Weather employed or retired people won't be able to live here without clean clothes, heat their homes, or afford any mode of transportation. By choking off the use of electricity expansion to our homes to charge the electric cars is ludicrous. By the same token this state is dismantling it's nuclear generating. Pushing these agendas will shut down the state ahead of 2035. Rural school busses average more miles per day than electric busses can provide, plus there is a huge cost to the school districts to try to convert their fleets to electric. The taxpayers that might still be left won't be able to afford your crazy and thoughtless proposal! | ||
| Douglas,Funke | Citizens for Regional Transit | Please find our comments on the Draft Scoping Plan attached. Thanks you for you work. | |
| Rich,Schiafo | |||
| Carol,Lankes | I am opposed to elimination of natural gas for cooking and heating. | ||
| Isabella,Wrobel | I hope there will be more jobs in the climate sector for middle and working classes that can help improve their communities as well as provide a sustainable income. I do believe that it will be beneficial to also create climate groups at the county level in addition to the Climate Action Council to help progress on these goals while also having eyes and ears on the ground to report or manage local concerns and setbacks to the Climate Action Council. Overall, I am very pleased with the hard work and dedication that was put into the CLCPA and I am very thrilled that I will be be around to see some great changes come to life. Thank you. | ||
| Ryan,Puckett | “Check all topics to which your comments apply“ I checked most topics…This is all interrelated. I am 31. Chose my degree in Environmental Sciences and chose my career in Sustainable Building Design because I have learned from an early age the necessity of limiting and then eliminating anthropogenic GHG emissions. Unfortunately after 31 years I have now had a first hand experience to witness the reality of humans effects on the environment. And in turn the effects we are having on our civilization. I am the operations manager for a 5 time “home performance with energy star contractor of the year.” We are a small business that has decarbonization / electrified over 100 homes in the past 2 years. Our company is able to do this work in spite of the complications imposed from local governments (permitting confusion), utilities (lack of resources), politics (climate deniers), and even hurdles set up by the PSC and NYSERDA (duplicative paperwork, ambiguous requirements, etc) which disincentivize businesses and contractors from being able to improve and decarbonization homes, particularly LMI occupied households. While NYS is among the leaders in “climate justice,” we are far from being equitable. Because we do not have prices associated with carbon impacts, we do not see the “value” in carbon reduction. 7.4 million homes in NYS (giver or take). Half are occupied by people that can’t afford to maintain, let alone improve, let alone decarbonize their homes. Land lords have little to no incentive to invest. Fossil fuel interests have everything to loose and will fight to maintain profitability. Regulating transport and agriculture for a sustainable future will be leaps and bounds easier than regulating buildings. Buildings will be the tail end of the decarbonization transition. The longer the tail, the more burden is put on our children. Stop bending to special interests. Please make ethical decisions. We must act now. TY | ||
| Elizabeth,Mann | After reviewing this plan I find these ideas to be radical. This document is making out landish claims in regards to health and the positivity of electric vehicles. In regards to our health most people in New York State do not live in areas where walking is easy to do. The document claims that billions of dollars will be saved because people are walking to work. I work in a school and I only work with one person who is capable to walk to and from work. As far as an electric vehicle who is outputting enough electricity to run all these vehicles. Also the cost is almost double for an electric car. These plans are for the elite not your everyday person. As we continue to see rising gas prices the elite our pushing people to a solution of electric through "clean energy" all creating vehicles that's batteries are far worse than the cars we drive today. These elite are also the ones creating the "solutions" to line there pockets. | ||
| Greg,Dudley | Full comment is attached. The New York State Climate Action Council must move forward with the most aggressive and scientifically-sound of the strategies towards reducing statewide carbon emissions. The Plan did a terrible job highlighting whether that is Strategy 3 or 4 and should more clearly define the strategies before selecting a final roll-out. Time is of the essence and there cannot be any further delays by entertaining less drastic measures such as Strategies 1 & 2 that put industries before people. When weighing the over 11,000 public comments received, comments put forward by lobbyists and industry representatives should not be considered to the same extent as everyday people of New York - who our state resources legally belong to. (See attached for specific examples) Lastly - the summary draft scoping plan overview (an 18-page PDF) was unclear and did not make it understood that the State is seeking input on THREE alternative strategies deviating from a baseline. Distinctions among the strategies were murky at best, and readers had to cross-reference to page 71 of a 341-page document to determine which strategy is actually most aggressive for tackling climate change. Frankly, even then, it is still unclear because of the amount of acronyms in Figures 5-9. This is misleading and clearly indicates the committee does not have an outreach specialist skilled at messaging to broad audiences. The State must demonstrate that it has made an honest effort to engage with environmental justice neighborhoods and community members from multiple literacy and primary language backgrounds, beyond a few meetings at select universities and libraries. The State must also demonstrate it consulted with scientists, experts and community residents of Tribal communities within New York State bounds such as members of the Haudenosaunee communities, before selecting and rolling out the final strategy. There is no indication that the State has consulted indigenous New Yorkers. | ||
| CHARLES,KUNSELMAN | The overall effect of this plan is killing the economy and will cause a lot of bankruptcies. To force unwanted hardship on business and homeowners by levying fees and fines on all entities using natural gas and gasoline is outrageous. The end result of this climate action scoping plan is unacceptable. | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Jo,Johnson | See attached (by the way a 2000-character limit for comment on a 341-page document is unreasonable). | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Diane,Pudlewski | This plan is offensive and destructive to the people of NYS. Maybe the people who have money and can afford your plan will benefit but everyone else will suffer . That all of you who sit up there in Albany and DC for that matter think you know what is best for all of us is an insult. You work for us but are not suppose to decide our lives paths for us. You were not elected to shove climate plans down our throats . You should give us alternatives and allow us to decide what is best for ourselves and our Country not shove all this down our throats , shoving it at us turns us against all this . Try placing people from both spectrums on your committee. Have people who represent solar fuels and fossil fuels creating this plan . I placed an order for an electric vehicle 3 months ago and will be cancelling that order this next week. I will fight and resist this to the end . I am to purchase an electric vehicle , solar panels , geothermal heating , ride a bike , public transportation and whatever else you expect on a retirees salary as you have the media advise me that within the next 10-15 years Social Security and Medicare will be nonexistent because all you that know what is best for us have misused our funds . Do the right thing , stop playing God and let us live our lives as we see best . | ||
| Vanessa , Miller | As a lifelong resident of New York I am greatly disturbed to have just heard of this proposal. These actions would be devastating financially, to low and middle income families. The financially strain these regulations would cripple these communities I remember thinking banning plastic bags was radical. That’s nothing compared to this. I thought NY was a state that embraced free choice. Are you trying to push everyone out of the state ? | ||
| Vanessa , Miller | As a lifelong resident of New York I am greatly disturbed to have just heard of this proposal. These actions would be devastating financially, to low and middle income families. The financially strain these regulations would cripple these communities I remember thinking banning plastic bags was radical. That’s nothing compared to this. I thought NY was a state that embraced free choice. Are you trying to push everyone out of the state ? | ||
| Patricia,Bager | I have reviewed the draft scoping plan and goal targets of the Climate Action Council and I believe You need to go back to the drawing board….. The plan is too aggressive, just like the Build Back Better plan of the WEF and of the Federal government. If your ultimate goal is to put the majority of New Yorkers in poverty and freeze them out —then by all means, full speed ahead. Natural gas is some the cleanest, most abundant, least expensive forms of energy available for Americans. Forcing the rapid change to very unreliable, very expensive, difficult to maintain available “green” energy programs like wind and solar is sheer stupidity. Look at Germany, a country which has mainly switched to wind and solar and is unable to meet the demands of their businesses and people. And this is WITHOUT mainly electric vehicles! Look at Texas, which has switched to wind power for many areas and cannot meet demand and is weather dependent for ANY kind of efficiency. A recent storm system forced blackouts on many areas. And again, this is WITHOUT a majority of vehicles being EVs. Have you lost ALL capability for rational thought? Stop living in a dream world.. Come back to REALITY. As a voter and taxpayer, I totally OBJECT to these plans and goals. It is NOT rational. | ||
| Gerhard,Fox | This is one of the worst moves NYS could make. It I’ll make a lot of families consider leaving the state.Our infrastructures were not designed to hold up to this kind of use.We lose electric power many times a year as it is and this would just make things worse.We would have a struggle in winter months to stay warm,we couldn’t cook,make coffee or shower.Then there’s the cost of upgrading our houses to handle all the extra electrical draw.Not to mention what electric bills will be.Next for low and middle income and retirees,how are they supposed to come up with finances to afford new hot water tanks,furnaces,stoves,dryers,etc.Not to many will be able to purchase electric cars and charging units with their large price tags.There must be a better way to make everyone happy. I am against this direction the state is going. | ||
| Gerhard,Fox | This is one of the worst moves NYS could make. It I’ll make a lot of families consider leaving the state.Our infrastructures were not designed to hold up to this kind of use.We lose electric power many times a year as it is and this would just make things worse.We would have a struggle in winter months to stay warm,we couldn’t cook,make coffee or shower.Then there’s the cost of upgrading our houses to handle all the extra electrical draw.Not to mention what electric bills will be.Next for low and middle income and retirees,how are they supposed to come up with finances to afford new hot water tanks,furnaces,stoves,dryers,etc.Not to many will be able to purchase electric cars and charging units with their large price tags.There must be a better way to make everyone happy. I am against this direction the state is going. | ||
| James,Shine | The entire idea that man can somehow control the planets climate is insane. Changing from fossil fuels in the short time outlined will be impossible. Money would be better spent on new generation nuclear energy. | ||
| Jennifer ,Okal | This plan to force citizens of NYS into abandoning fossil fuels and depending on unreliable, intermittent, and unaffordable renewable energy sources is a destructive plan that hurts people. New York State government does not know what is best for its residents. People should have liberty to decide what fuel source they will use. The decision should not be forced on them. A government that forces these decisions upon the citizenry is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. In addition, the Climate Action Council is a powerful body composed of UNELECTED individuals who do not represent the people of New York. | ||
| Eva,Lowe | Hello, I strongly support the Draft Scoping Plan and urge the NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: (This is only a partial list!) Incredibly, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. That means tons of toxic exhaust dumped on us and our children. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Hard to believe but true; we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Children, Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. We can do better. Please! | ||
| Marisa,Passaro | It is imperative New York makes sweeping action to protect the climate. We should as a state be recycling glass, we should have curbside compost pickup. As a state we should be letter local flowers, shrubs and vegetation on our highways and not wasteful grass. As you all know this works to prevent flooding as well. Not a new building or home in this state should be built without a set of standards that ensures the buildings will stand the test of time but also provide a carbon neutral utilization of the space. On Long Island specifically we should be revitalizing our shores and partnering with oyster farmers to grow that economy while cleaning our shores. We should be doing what we can to close or lessen the impact of the Brookhaven dump. The dump is detrimental to community members and we need to do our best to prevent more waste from piling up. | ||
| Dawn,Raczka | This is going to put a strain on our whole infrastructure. There has been no long term study on the effects on the environment. I do not approve of anything that is being considered. | ||
| Brett,Newton | What about every other state and country that doesn’t move forward with this concept reducing emissions? NYS citizens bear the brunt of the cost of leading the way and it’s already to expensive to live here. Not everyone can afford a electric car, never mind the skyrocketing cost of nearly every item you need to just live. As far as land use, NYS just approved a NYSERDA funded Solar project in Hartland NY, 14105 consuming 2000+ acres of farm land for solar panels, all for the good to go green, why wouldn’t you, NYS, place solar panels on all the brown fields in Niagara county? Go ahead NYS, get green and destroy more acres in Niagara County, now it’s farm land for solar that was used to provide food to people and livestock. Let all the brown fields sit and do nothing with them. WAY TO GO NYS. | ||
| Kimberly,Wolcott | I believe much of what I have read in this draft plan will serve to hurt New Yorkers in the area in which I live. I drive 60 miles a day to and from the job I have held for the past 21 years. There is absolutely no way that I can walk or bike to my job and there is no public transportation available to get me there. Many of the solutions I read about will work in cities, but not in the many rural areas of our state. In addition, the most common heating method in our area is natural gas. Most people I know do not have the resources to convert their homes over to electric only. Many people I know also use only wood stoves for heating - especially in really remote areas. Is it really necessary to make people change their heating sources when they might not actually have access to electric? Also, we actually happen to have two heat pumps in our house in order to have air conditioning. We had to replace both of them last year since the heating/cooling elements had rusted out - of course we realized it a month after they were out of warranty. Many people would struggle to replace these units every 7-10 years. If we were forced to get rid of our natural gas hook-up, we would have to replace multiple appliances. Who has the money for that? The current spike in gasoline prices are already decimating people's life savings and ability to plan for the future. The changes that this plan proposes would be costly to thousands of people that are already struggling to get by because of the demonization of gasoline and diesel engines. Please stop hurting rural New Yorkers with these plans and policies that would make it even more costly to live in the most expensive state in the nation!!! | ||
| Suzanne,Newton | Industrial sized solar projects should not be placed on land that is zoned for agriculture. Projects of this magnitude would be better suited for land that has been determined to be brownfields (making it unusable for farming or residential use) or for land that is already zoned for industrial use. Homeowners deserve to have their voices heard. We have put our hard earned money, hearts and soul into our properties that are surrounded by beautiful farmland and it is not right to now place solar panels and battery storage (solar power plants) in these areas. Let’s truly protect our environment by leaving these solar power plants off of our farmlands. | ||
| Earl,Vooper | This plan will destroy the middle class. The “do gooders” environmentalist have no respect for the common man and women. This state will loose thousands of more people, including my wife, children, and many more. If all other states do the same there will be a revolution in the states This group of proposals will destroy NYS. Enough is enough. The common man needs well thought out ideas instead of the idiotic proposals. Use COMMON SENCE! | ||
| Thane,Wright | Taxpayer | I did not ask for this far reaching Democrat initiative to force me to buy electric cars or change my way of living or life. The Constitution is written that I have the right to pursue happiness and this forced climate change initiative is criminal to say the least. I use clean energy which is natural gas to heat my home as it is. To change over to all electric appliances and get an electric car to charge would crash the grid where I live. In the rural areas of the state there is no modern infrastructure to support this bold initiative. I can't support this government overreach no way no how. Why is NYS telling me what I have to do to live here. I think this state has become a fascist state that my father fought against in World War II. This law has to be repealed or people in power need to leave office. | |
| Brian,Wilson | Other than the anti-China comments, this is a good technical overview of the folly of ignoring nuclear in NYS future energy development plans. See Attached | ||
| Anne,Conway | Thank you for all the work that you have done in putting together this very comprehensive plan. In reducing carbon emissions I feel that the most efficient way is to impose a carbon fee and dividend plan. A fee should be placed on fossil fuels and should increase at a steady pace so that renewable sources of energy are more economically favorable. The fees collected should be returned to low and moderate income families. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | There is a specific request for feedback on the components of the three mitigation scenarios as well as an implicit request for a recommendation for the appropriate scenario going forward. This comment presents my response. I compared the proposed strategies for multiple sectors. The strategies in Scenarios 3 and 4 consistently rely on aspirational and poorly documented control measure enhancements that I don’t believe are likely to work as proposed. As a result, I believe that mitigation scenario 2, Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels should be the recommended path forward for the Final Scoping Plan simply because it relies on fewer untested technologies. | |
| Randy,Gyory | |||
| Mark,Glogowski | self | In 1970, the world produced electric energy equivalent to the amount of heat the world radiated out into space. Today the US alone produces10 times that amount of electricity, and the world as a whole nearly 40 times that amount of electricity. Electrical energy is mostly disappated into the core of the earth. That the core is heating up has been verified by satalites measuring the increase fulidity of tectonic plates. Earthquakes have increased in number and intensity. Additionally, in 1970 there was a report issued that stated when the human population reached 6 billion, there would be desertification occuring at an increasing rate because there is not enought CO2 in the atmosphere to support the plant life required for a population that size. Changing from CO2 producing technologies to all electric is IMHO equivalent to killing cats during the plague. The world should be focusing on electricity efficiencies, reducing the amount of electricity being produced, not increasing electricity production and distribution. If CO2 is a problem, consider this: Historically all of the CO2 was generated within the lower 1 mile blanket of the atmosphere. Today, planes and jets produce a CO2 blank 10 miles high and higher. Even a small increase in the CO2 blanket thickness would have great impact on global warming if CO2 is the problem. At ground level two massive sinks for CO2 exist: The Oceans, which turn it into H2CO3, and plant life. I don't believe anyone will complain about increased vitality of plant life. Burning natural gas creates an overall benefit to the ecology, not a detrement. The increase in the temperature of the air does not account for the disproportionate warming of the water on the ocean bottoms? We need to focus on cooling the core of the earth. That will definitely not happen if we massively increase the amount of electricity we are producing. Stop the madness. Solar and wind energy production is good, but carbon based fuels are too! | |
| Gerri,Wiley | Please consider Citizens' Climate Lobby's CARBON FEE & DIVDEND proposal as essential to making the transition. Make flying, driving ICE cars & trucks, heating with fossil fuels, and eating meat & dairy EXPENSIVE. Please focus on energy load reduction as a priority: - Sealing and insulating homes and buildings with low GWP materials - Building rapid rail transit - Building walkable communities - Reducing the number of vehicles - Reducing energy use for meat and dairy forward diets that harm public & planetary health - Banning cryptocurrency mining Thank you for your work. | ||
| Susan,Caradonna | The US must maintain a stable baseline of energy, and that is fossil fuels. Wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t shine consistently everywhere. We have had hundreds of years of clean natural gas. It is bad stewardship if God’s natural resources to throw that and oil away. I know of quite a few apartment complexes that transitioned to gas heating because it’s cheaper than electric heat. Our grid is not in any condition for a rushed change. Take a quick look at Lake Mead’s condition and the blackouts in the western states. | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | These comments address a few Draft Scoping Plan electric system issues. The ultimate problem is that the Climate Act presumed that converting the electric grid from its current reliance on fossil fuels to provide reliable electricity when needed most was just a matter of political will. However, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Power Trends 2022 report notes: “Long-duration, dispatchable, and emission-free resources will be necessary to maintain reliability and meet the objectives of the CLCPA. Resources with this combination of attributes are not commercially available at this time but will be critical to future grid reliability.” The Draft Scoping Plan projects that the long-duration, dispatchable, and emission-free resource capacity requirement is about the same as the current fossil-fired generating capacity. This is an enormous challenge and the cavalier way it is addressed in the Draft does not inspire confidence that the Integration Analysis electric system projections are viable. I estimated the costs for the projected generating capacity described in the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis. My estimate of the overnight cost to develop the resources needed to transition to a zero-emissions electric system in 2040 are generally consistent with the Appendix G Figure 48 net present value of system expenditures. The Draft Scoping Plan does not provide sufficient documentation to reconcile all the differences. My estimates only include the capital costs for the projected generating resources and do not include transmission ancillary services that must be included for a true estimate of the total costs to go to zero-emissions generation | |
| Judy,Finitz | I don't know what our government is thinking, this is not the time to add extra costs to owning a home in NY and fast tracking legislation that our utilities can not handle at this time! To try to get rid of natural gas appliances in homes, including furnaces is ridiculous in the northeast. What are we supposed to heat our home with, firewood and paper? The electric grid across the country is not equipped to handle every appliance, furnaces and cars all across the country. We have already had brownouts in other parts of the U.S. and if your plan goes through look for more of the same here. New York is moving way too fast with this initiative and it could bring disastrous consequences to the people and economy of NY State. The United States is one of the few countries that is already doing a good job trying to reverse climate change, don't wreck our economy by trying to push through policies that don't make any sense. What we really have to worry about are the countries that don't give a damn about climate change, like CHINA, RUSSIA AND INDIA! Don't vote for this policy, it really doesn't make economic sense for the people of NY and for the people of the United States!! | ||
| Chere,Campbell | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan. New Yorkers suffer under the daily scourge of helicopters. The helicopters' overbearing racket shatters the peace of our neighborhoods and parks. Helicopter noise is not only heard, but felt, its low subsonic frequency causing a visceral queasiness. Withstanding such noise is extremely stressful. It is profoundly disruptive. They spew tons of toxic pollutants into our air. One helicopter emits 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, over 40x that of a passenger car. Airborne particulates emitted by piston engine helicopters harmfully impact respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and children’s brains and nervous systems. They are not necessary to the safety or security of the city. No amount of money from the helicopter industry can justify the harm they cause with their noise and air pollution. The final NYCAC scoping plan must focus on reliable, sustainable mass transport. It must immediately ban carbon-intense nonessential helicopters. To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing and commuter flights is an injustice to all New Yorkers. | ||
| Steve,Tilyou | You have obviously spent a great deal of time and money developing this plan which, in my expert opinion (I'm as much of an expert on systems as those cited in your vast list of contributors), does not adequately distinguish urban needs vs rural needs. The entire project is heavily urban biased with little to no real concern for the quality of life impact or rural citizens. I guarantee you this plan would look quite different if you employed farmers, experienced rural civil engineers, small business owners, etc., in the scoping (not 'scopping' as several of the files are incorrectly named...) of this project. I also realize the futility of expressing my concern which will be summarily dismissed without the slightest regard for the fundamental concern I have - namely the continued demoralization and dissolution of rural and suburban NY populace which has suffered immensely over the past 50 years. | ||
| Richard,Mezic | To the Members of the Climate Action Council As a human living on planet Earth, I know that climate change is one of the most controversial challenges of our time. It can not be ignored and we must all work together to find viable solutions. The CAC must educate. As a resident of NYS, I know that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) is a life-changing initiative. However, the general public is not aware of any of these regulations. The CAC failed by not conducting an extensive public outreach program. Someone called it “the most important piece of legislation… that no one knows about”. The CAC must consider affordability. As a resident of NYC, I can pay my current heating and cooling bills. I know that three times more energy is sent out on the coldest day in the Winter (with natural gas) than on the hottest day in the Summer (with electricity). Studies show that over 50% of the buildings within NYC cannot easily be electrified. Everyone can not pay for an immediate change. It must take place gradually and utility costs should not increase dramatically. The CAC must consider reliability. As an engineer, I know that you can’t change physics. Electricity is an energy carrier and not an energy source. Naturally occurring resources like coal, oil, wood, natural gas, geothermal and even uranium can be collected and sold. You can not find electricity, it must be manufactured. Solar and wind generation is not dispatchable. You must move electricity from where you make it to where you need it. The CAC must allow choice. The CLCPA and the CAC outlines what needs to be done but not how we will get there. Legislation should not be picking winners and losers. Subsidies don’t create a market. Solar power is 20% efficient at best whereas distributed cogeneration can easily achieve 90%. Customer choice and the free market should determine how this plays out. The answer is a hybrid approach where everything is complementary. | ||
| Ashley,Waite | This plan would severely harm the people of NYS who live in "rural" areas. We don't even have access to WIFI yet in an age where everything is done online. We are being left behind in multiple areas if this actually is put into effect. I heated my house with electric when I first purchased it in Dec 2019. My electric bill for one month was over $800. That's my mortgage payment. I will be freezing. There's no HEAP when it comes to electric. So people in cities will be left behind as well. Our government should be concerned with getting all of us to the same places, before it focuses on how to continue to move forward. I'm both disgusted and disappointed in this legislation, and the leaders pushing it. How will I keep my family warm? At a time when inflation is at it's highest; when people are going hungry; you want us to be freezing too? It was -35 last winter for a major part of the winter. What a dumb piece of legislation; Nobody leaves out the little guy quite like NYS, yet prides themselves on their inclusiveness. | ||
| Marlin,Gillette | When looking at deadline years it is obvious that it is unattainable. Decades are required to make major changes in infrastructure. The installation of the electrical grid as we know it today took about 50 years to implement in Western New York. Similarly, the use of natural gas required many decades to install. I grew up on a rural dairy farm in the 1940s where heating and cooking was done using wood fired stoves and furnaces. Cows were milked by hand prior to 1950 which I did as a child. The electrical grid of that era barely was able to power the installation of milking machines. Cooling of milk was done by cold water troughs, and ice stored from nearby lakes and ponds in the winter. Many years went by to install electrical grids able to handle refrigeration to handle cooling milk and powering other new farm equipment. The continued hysteria about switching to EVs can be deflated by looking at the NYSERDA EV registration map numbers down to zip codes, and counties. Can the auto industry dealerships support themselves based on numbers of EVs being sold? Consider the VW ID.4 registration numbers for WNY after about two years of sales as such a vehicle priced at a level many people can barely afford. The EV is a vehicle for the extremely wealthy with access to charging facilities. Charging facilities not to be found on the narrow side streets of an old city such as Buffalo. | ||
| Patricia,Halliman-Hay | The climate leadership should be all voting residents of NY not political agents, voters should be who decides what resource is used and PREFERRED,NOT government. Gas appliances are OUR choice,it is always dependable, the "GRID" is NOT! Gas fueled cars again are the peoples choice not to be decided by Cuomo and his gang in Albany. Solar energy is in its embryo state, we do not build any solar grids, batteries that can store energy,or mine rare earth minerals used in batteries,until all necessary elements is 100% sustainability can be produced in the USA you are degrading MY STATE! As far as geothermal home owners do not have the land area needed to support home systems,and community systems are ridiculous in COST and AREA and DELIVERY. This council is just ANOTHER WAY TO WASTE NY TAX PAYERS $ TYPICAL OF THE VERY SAD SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN IN ALBANY AND WASHINGTON DC. I REQUEST A RESPONCE TO MY COMMENTS ------------ NOT A FORM RESPONCE! | ||
| Mikaela,H | Good day, Thank you for taking the time to put this together. As a millennial, I appreciate the thought and consideration for future generations- especially in the age of present day living. It's refreshing. My husband and I are currently in the process of installing a ground source heat pump and so my comment relates to that. This process is needlessly complex with tax credits and financing options that have caps, income thresholds, etc. And still it is outside the vast majority of the publics budget at $93,000 before tax credits. Please give some thought to not only increasing heat pumps but making the process more user friendly-ie easier to navigate and more accessible given budgetary constraints. Further, there are so few established companies to install the pumps- what protections do folks have for new and coming companies that may not have experience or a solid foundation? Will warranties be honored if the company is no longer operating or is the expectation to expand current companies? Please consider this further as few folks can do at home DIY repairs on equipment that is rather new compared to a conventional boiler. I look forward to following this closely and i thank you leading this important effort. | ||
| john,bruce | I do not believe that propane contributes to climate change . The Daily Caller and other sources reported that President Obama had installed 3 propane tanks on his Martha's Vineyard property. Total capacity 2500 gallons . If propane contributes to man made climate change President Obama would never install them at his home. | ||
| Jonothan,Logan | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Frank,Winkler | Providing leadership is good, but we can't go it alone without putting an extreme financial burden on our people. Wood instead of fossil fuels needs to be a significant part of the answer. Nuclear generation needs to have a major role in electricity production. We need to make sure electric cares do not create other environmental problems like mining for natural resources and dependence on unreliable nations. Our electric distribution lines need to grow to carry the extra power. That will take time, especially with the supply chain problems currently being experienced. The goals are certainly must be pursued, but much needs to be done as we continue to make progress. | ||
| Reyna,Cohen | ALIGN: Alliance for a Greater New York | ||
| MarieAnn,Cherry | To NYS Climate Action Council: Programs promoting LEDs are causing harm, hardship and household upheaval for New Yorkers with LED-reactive medical conditions. Council members know this. Yet the State keeps pushing public LED use without any apparent concern, as if those of us being hurt either don't matter or don't exist. Does the Council have a proposal for how LED-harmed New Yorkers will live, earn money and get to what we need in a state covered in lights that sicken and endanger us with a moment's exposure? The lighting industry admits they used the wrong metrics to test LEDs, so proposed remedies can't be based on their standards. Industry guidance also didn't factor in the most dangerous reactions, cumulative damage, increased sensitization over time, or that LED streetlights specifically harm fetuses and infants. Barring a course change, this crisis will be getting much worse. In any case, industry only offers harm 'reduction,' not harm removal. Remember filtered cigarettes? The industry knows that the environment is in trouble from LEDs, too. Trade literature cites independent research showing 60% reductions in periphyton mass and 40-60% reduction in pollinators from LED exposure. It notes phenological mismatches, top-down and bottom-up cascading damage, and mitigation measures that end up transferring LED impacts from one species onto another. (At a minimum, LED use is incompatible with Pollinator Friendly Roadways) The scope and variety of LED-induced damage makes dis-integration of entire ecosystems inevitable. The Council must realize that promoting LEDs means endorsing an unsafe product for wide public use. If the State intends to ignore scientific findings, and tune out the voices of its LED-light-harmed residents, then New York definitely needs a plan for dealing with the consequences. Are Climate Action Council members prepared to answer to an increasing number of LED-sickened people, in an LED-devastated New York State? MarieAnn Cherry | ||
| jeffrey,ellicott | home owner | I am against your ideas and plans on climate change. leave things alone system we have works good your way will only make life unpleasant. using electric should be voluntary not mandatory | |
| Jeanine,Gorman | I cannot foresee how the use of electric (batteries store - not manufacture) will be more cost effective or “green” when the disposal and development of electric energy sources is far worse for the environment than use of natural gas | ||
| Barbara,Eckstrom | Director, Tompkins County Recycling a nd Materials Management | Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the NYS Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan. As Director of the Tompkins County Department of Recycling and Materials Management for 36 years, it is satisfying to read that waste management and diversion is being recognized as a significant factor in managing climate emissions The draft Scoping document is a great first step in implementing an effective plan to minimize waste for the future. I offer comments and recommendations that are more substantive with focus on incentives for waste reduction, reuse, recycling and organics management. This requires a clear focus on the policy, legal, economic, financial, and environmental framework for a sustainable and long term waste minimization strategy.Tompkins County is a leader in implementing such a strategy. The County has a diversion rate of 60% but can’t go farther without strong State leadership, policy, funding, and program recommendations. W1 Organic Waste Reduction and Recycling- Food Waste Source Separation laws for businesses, education institutions, and residents should be imposed similar to recycling many years ago as infrastructure develops. The State should provide grant funding for operations including collection and processing through municipal and private sector partnerships. Data tracking and performance measurement standards should be provided for establishing best practices. W2 Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling- Waste prevention programs and initiatives should be required and modeled after those in other states. Reuse distribution centers are necessary to move goods, especially to underserved communities. Support for domestic textile waste reduction policy and program is lacking. W8 Recycling Markets- Recycling would benefit if the State formed a Market Development Organization similar to Mn, Mi, etc. the Organics roadmap should be expanded to include more than a marketing study. Please elaborate on implementation. Thank you | |
| Steve,Powers | Please provide funding for CAC's and EMC's which provide a critical role in communicating and implementing environmental messages and policy at the town level. Thank you! | ||
| Heidi,Boudrias | I am concerned about the use of only electric cars. We will have the problem of more batteries to discard. How will that be done safely for our environment? Batteries present still a problem with affordability. I am concerned when there are power outages due to storms, people will not be able to cook on their stovetops for meals. At least with a gas stove, people can still acquire a meal when there is no power. I am concerned about the use of blackouts by the government. Are regions being considered? These should not be blanket requirements in every area of the state. Sure, people may be able to ride bicycles, walk, and use public transportation in cities; however, that is not necessarily true in rural areas and suburbs. What is possible, helpful, and affordable to families of all ages? Thank you for considering the public's concerns. | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | The final Scoping Plan must specify the level of mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants that each industry sector must achieve by 2050 and the other dates set forth in the CLCPA, as well as a timeline for achieving such reductions. There must be mandates for each sector that are legally enforceable against businesses and individuals and specify targets for individual businesses when feasible. In addition, the final scoping plan should clarify each agency’s obligations in regard to CLCPA Sections 7(1), 7(2), and 7(3) in Article 75 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The final scoping plan should establish a process to ensure the achievement of the CLCPA investment mandate. To prevent false solutions, the state must establish, if necessary by legislation, a system to fund greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutant reductions and a transition to a renewable energy economy. | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | Hydrogen has been posed as a climate-friendly solution that can be produced from a variety of resources, like natural gas, nuclear power, biogas, and renewable power like solar. Framed as an alternative to methane, or natural gas, green hydrogen is hydrogen generated by renewable energy from low-carbon power. As long as the hydrogen comes from a renewable source like solar then it is considered “green” hydrogen. However, green hydrogen doesn’t come without consequences. Green hydrogen is very wasteful, eating up more than half of the renewable electricity used to create it. Creating it is a dirty process that generates NOx, a pollutant linked to smog, acid rain, asthma, pulmonary disease, lung cancer, stroke, and heart disease. Green hydrogen is also very expensive—four times more expensive than natural gas—and requires all new infrastructure and appliances to use it safely. Because of this, green hydrogen must only be used as a last resort for decarbonization. It may serve as a zero-emission replacement for some electricity and building heating but it must not be considered as a fully reliant solution for decarbonizing New York in the final scoping plan. In reality, green hydrogen is an extremely wasteful, difficult-to-use, pollution-heavy, and expensive way to cut emissions from these sectors, especially compared to the alternatives: wind, solar, and heat pumps. Relying on green hydrogen in New York’s electricity sector would require three times more wind and solar power and would worsen air pollution in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Why rely on green hydrogen when we will need renewable energy to produce it already? To throw away two-thirds of the renewable electricity that is already available only to convert it to hydrogen and then burn it to create electricity makes no sense. That amount of energy could be used to build three solar farms rather than relying on old facilities and methods that only further contribute to incentivizing the use of fossil fuels. | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | Establish a "feebate" on vehicle purchases to accelerate the shift to EVs. Enable direct-to-consumer sales by electric car manufacturers to reduce barriers to purchasing an EV.Amend building codes to: ? Require new buildings to be EV-charging ready. This is already a requirement of NYStretch 2020, NYSERDA's supplement to the State Energy Code, and should be included in the next round of Energy Code updates. Adopt regulations similar to California's proposed Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to reach 100% sales of zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040. ? Provide enhanced State incentives for the purchase of zero-emissions trucks, giving preferences to fleets adversely impacting disadvantaged communities. ? Expand charging infrastructure, with a particular focus on investments in disadvantaged communities, multifamily buildings and large employers. ? Direct utilities to address demand charges that discourage public charging facilities, and design rates and programs to incentivize off-peak charging. ? Require the New York State passenger fleet to be all electric by 2035. (At the time of writing, legislation to do so has passed both houses but has not yet been signed into law.) | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | Phase out fossil fuels in electricity generation by 2040. Many of New York's fossil fuel plants are already at retirement age (72% of gas turbines!) Express your support for the process laid out in the Scoping Plan for regulations that ensure a continual decline in GHG emissions from power plants, reaching zero by 2040. Encourage re-use of power plant sites for battery storage. This would not only support the clean energy transition but would also help to mitigate the revenue and jobs impacts of plant closure. Deny new gas infrastructure permits to avoid increases in GHG emissions and creation of more stranded assets. Support high-value renewable projects that contribute to equity, resilience, and smart land use. Prioritize pairing of solar with electrification in low-income housing, and expanded opportunities for low-income participation in community renewable energy. Develop incentives to encourage solar projects on rooftops, over parking lots and on brownfields to be paired with battery storage. Provide communities with the support they need to partner in the renewable energy transition. Provide resources and assistance to local governments to streamline permitting and zoning for renewable energy. Develop a Clean Energy Development Mapping Tool for local governments to help them plan/site renewables. Ramp up battery storage development and demand-side solutions to reduce peak demand and enhance grid reliability. Prioritize climate education and awareness-raising about the benefits of renewable energy. Successful implementation of the Climate Act depends upon public support and engagement to meet climate goals. It also depends on inspiring young people to pursue clean energy careers and create the workforce needed to transform New York's economy. | ||
| Merry,Wokasien | I am Not in agreement with the goals for the climate plan. Reverting to electric power as the main source and requiring vehicles to be electric in 2 years is a not going to be a realistic goal. We need chargers, and all homes that do. Ot have garages will need to have a charger that is outside. The su. Does not shine everyday and wi d turbines do not work all the time. Natural gas is a clean way to provide out basic needs for hearing our homes and running appliances. We do not have the money to do this project and make these goals. Instead of politicians and government workers talking about a pie in the sky plan, p,ease provide something that is more conservative and achievable over a much longer time period. This is.too expensive save to jump into with things the way they are now. Protect our economy and the working people. Thank you. | ||
| Karen ,O’Connell | The whole thing is asinine. God doesn’t make mistakes and neither should you! | ||
| Robert,Reynolds | It is necessary to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to a sustainable and safe level. Renewable sources of energy are part of the solution, but they are not an uninterruptable sources of electrical energy production. Nuclear power is the only currently proven method of generating electricity that does not also produce CO2. Nuclear should be the main source of uninterruptable electrical power generation until renewables and other sources are proven, and in common use. Modern nuclear technology is safe and new designs can be made “fail safe”. Used nuclear fuel should be recycled to make new fuel. We have an enormous supply of “spent” fuel rods in long term storage. More money should be spent on advanced reactor designs that would consume or run on used nuclear fuel in the future. One easy way to encourage renewable solar production from home owners is to eliminate the annual “even-up” provision so home owners can be net producers of electricity without any penalty. Currently, the home owner is prevented from producing more than the home owner can use because the net production is set back to “0” once per year. The home owner is paid a small amount for the excess produced, or is billed a small amount if the home owner is an annual consumer. The system is designed to only allow home owners to only produce the average amount used by the home owner. All these initiatives will be adding electrical loads to our power grids. These future loads must be studied and the grids need to be improved BEFORE these extra loads are imposed on them. To achieve the time goals stated by the Climate Action Council, a realistic month by month plan needs to be developed which would include milestone accomplishments, as well as potential negative consequences, and corrective actions to prevent our economy from becoming unstable. Thank you for considering these points. Robert W. Reynolds Brunswick, NY | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | Ban fossil fuel heating & equipment in new buildings. By 2024, all-electric energy codes are in place for new residential and mixed-use (residential/commercial) buildings under five stories; by 2027, all-electric codes for new construction should be extended to all residential and commercial building types. End fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. Support the Scoping Plan's focus on efficient electrification as the appropriate pathway to eliminating emissions from buildings, not false solutions like renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen. RNG contributes to air pollution and cannot be produced in sufficient quantities in New York to replace fossil fuels. The production of hydrogen is polluting, and its distribution would require costly new pipeline infrastructure to deliver to buildings. Initiate a managed transition from utility gas to clean heating and cooling in existing buildings to be completed by 2050, with an interim target of 2 million decarbonized buildings by 2030. As soon as possible, launch a major, sustained statewide public education and information campaign to support climate-friendly choices by consumers for building improvements and equipment. Commit at least $1 billion annually to support energy efficiency and electrification for Disadvantaged Communities and low- and moderate-income households. Immediately begin to identify workforce development needs and develop a plan to scale up the workforce for building decarbonization. By 2030, enact zero-emissions standards for end-of-useful-life replacements of heating and hot water equipment in single-family homes and low-rise residential buildings up to 49 housing units; | ||
| Nick,Trotto | Retired | Are you people out of your mind. Did all of you think of this yourselves or did you get some help from the tooth fairy. You must all be from NYC because you have absolutely no knowledge of what it’s like to live in upstate NY. I’m a retired and could not afford everything you proposing, unless you plan on paying for for everything you’re proposing. I could go on but as usual you’re going to shove this proposal down our throats. I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t give me an appearance ticket for writing this | |
| Margaret,Reilly | I spoke and listened at the Syracuse public hearing. It struck me that those opposing the implementation of the CLCPA were concerned primarily with ill-reasoned adverse impacts to the economy. The economic impacts from NOT implementing these goals far outweigh those short termed, shortsighted, and corporate profit driven concerns. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff state that Climate Change is a threat to American Security with the President saying it could be the greatest. According to the Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change Report; nations will lack the capacity to manage climate stress, and adapt to accelerated desertification, extreme heat, and rising seas. People will migrate to already inhabited locations increasing friction and societal strains. International tension will rise as nations attempt to obtain sufficient food, water, and energy. Already happening…China damning up water India depends on and India controlling the flow of Pakistan’s fresh water. Addressing Climate Change in the short-term thru adaptation and resiliency and in the long-term through emissions reduction is ESSENTIAL. We currently see adverse economic impacts in NY due to climate change.As part of the Sauquoit Creek Channel & Floodplain Restoration Program for which I am project engineer/manager; NYSDOT is replacing several bridges, not because they are structurally deficient, but because they do not meet new design standards to alleviate flooding caused by Climate Change. This is unprecedented as is the residential buy-out of ~200 homes in a small central NY town. You are the climate leaders of NY State who have a monumental, visionary decision ahead of them. Public health & welfare, not corporate profits must inform your decision to transition our economy off fossil-fuels to renewables with NO FALSE SOLUTIONS. Our grandchildren are relying on you to avoid the chaos that comes from Climate Change. NY must go down in history as a true climate leader. | ||
| William ,Clark | I disagree with the electric only houses. This proposal assumes infrastructure that is not in place and will result hardship and the inability for people to heat their homes effectively. Sole source of power for daily lives is a bad idea. NY has a long history of storms and power outages. | ||
| Margaret,Reilly | As an environmental engineer I work on watersheds assisting communities in the Mohawk Valley to mitigate and adapt to flooding, one of the major effects of Climate Change. A current project of the Sauquoit Creek program is a buy-out of ~200 homes in the Village of Whitesboro. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on making NY resilient to flooding due to Climate Change. A strong Scoping Plan that implements the goals of the CLCPA will make NY proactive rather than reactive. Lawmakers need to uphold the CLCPA and decide to electrify NY with a grid powered by renewables, NOT fossil fuels, or FALSE SOLUTIONS. IT CAN BE DONE AND MUST BE DONE. My husband and I have transitioned our home off fossil fuels entirely. We installed rooftop solar and an ASHP system. We were warm during two weeks of below zero temperatures. These systems work even in the coldest of climates. We reduced our carbon footprint from fifteen tons to one and a half tons. If we get 1.5 million similar homes to go fossil free…that would be over 20 million TONS of carbon NOT going into the air. If our ancestors could transition from coal to oil and then to natural gas, we can transition to cleaner alternatives such as air source heat pumps and geothermal systems. It is projected that this transition would create an estimated 100,000 new jobs in energy-efficient construction and clean heating and cooling by 2030. For NY to become not only the National Climate Leader but the Climate World Leader, we MUST pass the legislation that electrifies NY NOW. We need to implement strong Climate Action that does not compromise the goals of the CLCPA! | ||
| Thomas,Camastra | I am writing to you to ask you to ban non essential air craft over NYC. I live in Astoria (Queens) and live under the Throggs route. The commuter flights going to the Hamptons is non stop and is destroying the community. It's not just the noise and pollution which is obvious and doesn't have to be expanded here. There is a REAL risk that one of the 1000's of air craft will come down on my community of another that's on it's route. It's going to happen. Astoria is very populated and when one goes down it will be a tragedy. Consider this a warning. There is no choice but to ban non essential air craft over homes. Thank you! Tom PS- I know you think I'm exaggerating with the 1000's of flights over Astoria. Check the Newsday and look up the number of flights going to the East Hampton Airport. All those flights are over homes in NYC. | ||
| Randolph ,Hamilton | This plan is absolutely insane! People won’t be able to afford it and the government should not have to subsidize it. We need both fossil fuels and renewables, not one or the other. And what about our military; should they be forced to switch to renewable energy? I don’t think so! | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New Yo rk Blog | In this comment I address the environmental and life cycle costs and benefits discussion in the Draft Scoping Plan. In general, the Plan over-estimates benefits and under-estimates costs throughout the document and associated documentation. This extends beyond financial costs and includes environmental impacts, upstream emissions, and life-cycle emissions. I maintain there is a major shortcoming in the analysis of the environmental impacts of the transition to net-zero electric generation by 2040. The most recent environmental impact analysis only addressed a fraction of the total number of wind turbines and area covered by solar PV installations. In addition, the environmental impacts of battery energy storage were not addressed. It is impossible to project the impacts of the environmental impacts of the dispatchable emissions-free resource that it included in the capacity projections because a specific technology has not been specified. My comments quantify the renewable energy resource difference between the most recent environment analysis and the Integration Analysis projections. I recommend that the Department of Environmental Conservation propose thresholds for unacceptable environmental impacts. I believe that without addressing this problem that it is likely that the environmental impacts from the massive wind and solar resource developments will have far worse impacts than those that can be ascribed to climate change. For example, I project that at least 216 Bald Eagles could be killed every year when there are 9,445 MW of on-shore wind. There were 426 occupied bald eagle nest sites in New York in 2017. I am not a wildlife biologist but those numbers indicate to me that there will be major threats to the survivability of Bald Eagles in New York. The Final Scoping Plan must include proposed thresholds for unacceptable environmental impacts like this. | |
| Linda,Hardee | Yes, something needs to be done, but mandating it at this level on this aggressive of a timescale is unrealistic and setting up a recipe for disaster. Perhaps, if the electrical grid infrastructure was already in place, or substantially close to being in place, to support such ambitious goals... but you are nowhere remotely close to being able to sustain the amount of electrical power that would be required for every single house, business, industry, and automobile to be 100% electrical. Not to mention not all households can afford the tremendous jump in their electric bill that would be caused by them transitioning over to all electric for the house and automobile. EV technology is not where it needs to be in the efficiency of either the vehicle energy usage itself or the inherent loss of electricity during the charging process. Not to mention that the manufacturing technology for the batteries as an example is far more damaging and toxic to the environment (but I suppose that doesn't matter since it's not in our backyards, does it). Politicians and policy makers need to take a serious look at the real science and true facts and numbers, not just statistics, popular sound bites, and sales pitches being presented to them. I seriously question the motivations and intentions of any lawmaker who votes in favor of this. | ||
| Corey,Grace | Resource Innovations | The North American Gas Heat Pump Collaborative is a non-profit 501c3 organization funded by 14 dual fuel and gas utilities who recognize gas heat pump technologies play a critical role in accelerating achievement of decarbonization goals through a diversified pathway. Electrification alone will put high demands on the grid, likely leading to higher prices and weakened reliability. Thermal heat pump (THP) technology can help address these concerns by maintaining a diversified, equitable, affordable, resilient, and energy efficient pathway to decarbonization. Sustainability: THPs are extremely energy efficient, offering fuel efficiency well above 100%. THPs are designed to be compatible with rapidly scaling lower carbon fuels like renewable natural gas and hydrogen blends, enabling the gas industry to transition to cleaner fuel sources in the coming years. Additionally, unlike their electric counterparts, these thermal heat pump systems use refrigerants with low or no global warming potential. Equity, Affordability, and Accessibility: Achieving equitable decarbonization that preserves grid reliability will require diverse solutions. THPs are affordable, offer plug-and-play installation at relatively low cost, and perform well especially in cold climates so consumers experience maximum comfort. They do not require upgrades to a home or building’s existing infrastructure, reducing the cost of access for all. Lower monthly operation costs make THPs more affordable and equitable from both a first-cost and ongoing-cost basis. Resiliency and Reliability: Moving too quickly toward 100% electric supply could lead to higher prices and weakened grid reliability leaving sensitive communities behind. Increasing resilience by reducing electrical peak load at high use times helps stabilize the grid. THPs increase grid reliability by offering a solution to help avoid demand for electricity in areas where the pace of electrification is causing new high-cost peak loads. | |
| Mary,Mooney | Citizens' Climate Lobby | Thank you to the CAC, associated working groups, advisory panels, and all agency staff who contributed to the development of this impressive plan. The inclusion of Economy-wide Strategies as an important addition to the draft plan is important because even full implementation of all initial sector-specific Advisory Panel recommendations would not achieve the CLCPA goals. Economy-wide carbon pricing would help ensure that we do meet those goals. A price on carbon is cited by countless economists and scientists as the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. As a volunteer for the Citizens' Climate Lobby, I recommend and support a carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, whereby a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households, and perhaps certain businesses, to offset higher energy costs. The optimal carbon price would start low and rise gradually each year. This, along with returning revenue to households, is necessary to provide people and businesses reasonable time to transition to cleaner energy sources in response to clear, predictable pricing signals. Carbon pricing is preferred over other alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. Nevertheless, carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Thank you again. | |
| Gary,Katsanis | Speaking as a citizen living in one of the lowest income areas of New York State, I would like to observe that I and my neighbors are dependent on the use of natural gas. I have been on a disability income for twenty years now; however, I am well enough off in comparison to my neighbors. Yet I have no resources to convert my home from natural gas to a heat pump or geothermal system. I suggest you give every consideration to separating the rural areas from the urban areas in setting your targets for phasing out the use of natural gas. | ||
| Dennis,Palchefsky | Homeowner | What you doing??? The current electrical infrastructure cannot handle the current demand in any additional demand created by your idiotic sanctions. For us seniors to retrofit our gas double wall oven to electric will cost us well over $2000 for electric and that does not cover the cost for the $3000 wall oven. We just received an increase in our electric bill. NYSEG forgot to change our balanced budget charges when they increased their rates. That resulted in 50% of our SS increase to pay for their mistake. Additionally they raised the rates again but again di not adjust our balanced budget rates. So guess what I am anticipating that all of our increase (Thank you Joe Biden!) will go to pay for their screw up. Question to you is where is the data showing that we must do this? I have seen none to date except for unsubstantiated comments by Holchul. Also, I have a gas powered back up generator. What alternative power source will be available for emergency back up situations. Wind??? I do not think so. It is so easy to forget what happened in 1974 or so when there was a gas shortage and all new house were built with only electrical heating systems! My suggestion to all is Review the situation and get the facts and show data that necessitates this action. Deming once said "In god we trust, ALL THE REST MUST SHOW DATA! Br Dennis Palchefsky | |
| Michael,Wegryn | We are not prepared for this plan when it comes to the electrical grid. The grid needs to be upgraded BEFORE this plan is enacted. It's asinine to think this action plan will work otherwise. Stop trying to be like California! They have a warmer climate and electric heat does not compare to gas and the costs associated with heating your home in the North East. And when it comes to electric cars - what happens when WNY again gets blasted by a snow storm and people are stuck in their cars for many hours. Yes you can run out of gas but more intelligent drivers keep their tanks fuller during the winter because you never know what can happen. This so called climate plan is a disaster in the planning. NYS is becoming more and more of a Nazi state and trying to dictate to me like I am a child. Unbelievable!!!! | ||
| Richard,Grover | Rural and wild landscapes should not be sacrificed to accommodate renewable energy facilities. Priority should be to locate such facilities on already disturbed lands...on rooftops, over parking areas, in brownfields, etc. | ||
| Loren,Black | We are literally allowing our planet to cook to death. Everything must be done to put the environment ahead of money. | ||
| Ken,Coyne | Bellinger's Orchard LLC | Prime farm land should not be utilized for installation of large solar facilities. When you take into account the food shortages we are currently experiencing due to a war overseas, the elevated prices and the major water shortages they are constantly experiencing in California. It would seem like a more logical plan to turn the desert fields of California into solar installations and keep fertile soil of New York productive for raising food products. Energy is a National Issue and should be handled as such. The direction of states going off and creating their own plans without logical consideration of land usage and potential production is illogical. | |
| Sarah,Miller | no natural gas with increased cost electricity...????? STOP TRYING TO MAKE THINGS HARDER FOR THE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS!!!! | ||
| Benny,Wong | Fulcrum BioEnergy, Inc. | We urge the Climate Action Council to include a firm endorsement of a Clean Fuel Standard in the Transportation Sector Strategies of the final Scoping Plan. Please see the attached letter for our complete comment | |
| Emily,Haggstrom | Consumer Energy Alliance | Please find attached comments on behalf of Wendy Hijos, Consumer Energy Alliance New York Director on the Climate Action Council's Draft Scoping Plan. | |
| Michael,Devonshire | Noise pollution is an environmental public health threat, which is presently caused by the many non-essential helicopter flights over populated areas of the city. They are referred to as "the new second hand smoke". A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are uniquely loud with their low vibration roars that are created by rotating blades, and additionally due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, and the fact that the heliports are located in densely populated areas. I have recorded the decibel levels of numerous helicopters flying over the Park Slope neighborhood - and an overwhelming majority of them exceed the FAA permitted noise level, principally because of their low altitude flight paths. It is nearly impossible to have a casual conversation when one flies over. This noise pollution, combined with the fuel burning emissions are a combination of pollutants that are dangerous and unacceptable. | ||
| Steven ,Passmore | I start my comment by saying that I am a lifelong New Yorker, many New Yorkers are open to alternative sources of energy, I include myself.These are very lofty goals but again the burden will fall on the middle class of the state. There are currently no ways to store energy created by windmills and solar panels. This would simply crush our economy as the current war on gas and oil is doing to our country .let’s not put the cart before the horse our electrical infrastructure is failing.The impact on every day New Yorkers would be immense, economically ,physically and mentally.Again small business owners after taking a huge hit during the Covid pandemic will be hit again destroying families and killing small businesses.There is a future for alternative energy sources,But a timeline of 5 to 10 years is not realistic or feasible. People are already beginning to use alternative sources of power in their homes and their communities. Let’s let this happen in a slow and constructive way and not rush our way into a disaster. Thank you | ||
| Veronica,Glasner | In regards to the Climate Action Counsel’s Draft Scoping Plan: NYS Climate Vision to completely eliminate the use of reliable fossil fuels and forcibly switch to unreliable and inconsistent renewable energy sources will be highly detrimental to the health of the state as a whole. First, a free state and government of the people, by the people and for the people, cannot, should not, and will not force its citizens to comply with the decisions and regulations formulated by a committee of unelected members. Second, the government and its committees do not have the authority to decide what type of vehicle New Yorkers drive or how far they drive it; how they heat their homes, or the appliance with which they choose to cook. Furthermore, expecting an entire state to run solely on electricity generated by wind and solar power will not only prove to be extremely costly to New Yorkers, but will also result in electrical shortages or worse, usage restrictions. Ice storms, wind storms, falling trees, and localized system breakdowns often leave electric consumers without electric service. What is your plan to prevent this? Outages of natural gas, on the other hand, are rare, or non existent. New Yorkers cannot be forced to rely on renewable energy. The sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow and the majority of the state is buried under several feet of snow for about 6 months out of the year. The Climate Action Council's proposal is unrealistic, and unAmerican! | ||
| Yayoi,Koizumi | Zero Waste Ithaca | A Strong Climate Action Plan Must Be Toxic-Free. As Zero Waste advocates in the Finger Lakes and the southern Adirondack regions, we were looking forward to submitting our comments to help strengthen the state’s climate plan. In some respects, we are pleased with the draft. But in many others, we are gravely disappointed. First, the positives: we enthusiastically endorse the waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling strategies it outlines. These include phasing out single-use disposables, requiring food establishments to offer utensils for takeouts by requests only, supporting the creation of infrastructures and programming for repair, reuse and refill, organics recycling (i.e. composting), and workforce development. We were also glad to see the recommendation for a surcharge on waste to help fund those programs toward a circular, real Zero Waste economy. However, the plan is eerily silent on fundamental problems underlying the waste crisis today - namely the toxicity and pollution potential of wastes as well as the staggering quantities of resources that we literally “waste” away. Both of these issues significantly impact environmental justice communities, urban and rural, during the climate crisis. The Climate Plan should call for an end to toxic incineration in New York. Did you know that waste-to-energy incineration is the most inefficient, polluting, climate-destroying, and expensive way to generate energy and manage waste? According to GAIA, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, trash incinerators emit 1.7 times more greenhouse gasses per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired power plants; and the cost is four times higher than solar and offshore wind energy, and 25% more expensive than coal. The toxic class of chemicals called PFAS are also going airborne through incineration. .. CONTINUED please see pdf | |
| Amy,Mattoon-Bowman | Very far-reaching plan. Incredibly NOT cost effective. Unrealistic time lines / achievements. Destined to impoverish the tax payers / residents of New York State. Realistic, attainable goals are necessary to preserve our resources and prepare for future generations. As a whole, this is not it. | ||
| Kurt,Thomas | The green new deal is a Marxist based ideology designed to destroy this country by destroying our ability to compete on a global scale. Everything in this proposal is extreme and dangerous to the American way of life. Climate change is a theory based on computer models that rising CO2 levels would increase global temperatures which has not happened. Germany has just resumed burning coal in its power plants because sustainable energy sources failed to be able to meet energy requirements and demand. Politicians supporting this America last agenda should be defeated and forever ignored. Kurt Thomas | ||
| joan,johnson | We need to stop using fossil fuel and stop crypto mining. Thank you. | ||
| Felix,Heisel | Cornell University / Circular Construction Lab | Over the whole lifecycle, buildings account for >50% of resource consumption, >50% of waste production, and most probably >40% of carbon emissions globally. To reach carbon neutrality quickly, focus should be placed on embodied carbon as these are upfront emissions that also include local skills, labor and history. Circular construction enables closed loops at the highest utility and value, where the most effective loop is the smallest and most local. Yet, the Climate Act mentions reuse, deconstruction and circular construction only briefly. 1. Reuse as materials management strategy should be integrated into all CLCPA strategies and adequately resourced 2. Add “Reuse” to “Waste prevention and Recycling”, following Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3R) 3. Looking to reuse as an opportunity to transform local liabilities (waste) into local assets (revenue-generating commodities) is a sensible solution for New York State, with quality jobs, workforce development and workforce engagement opportunities 4. Set a target of 2026 to divert 50% of building waste from landfills, 80% by 2030. 5. Require a per ton surcharge on all waste to fund reduction, reuse and recycling programs, while expanding policies to encourage individual and large-scale reuse. 6. Expand local financial assistance for reuse of building materials and encourage plans that support market development for these materials, including incentives and funding for pilot research and the development of local reuse centers and material exchanges 7. Support local governments to adopt requirements that require deconstruction rather than demolition 8. Prioritize reuse and recycling of building and infrastructure materials in new construction 9. Develop and enact state procurement standards for reused building material. 10. Enact a tax credit to encourage companies turning recyclable materials into new products to locate facilities in New York 11. Develop plans to divert concrete, gypsum and asphalt, CCD’s largest components | |
| Kinshuk,Chatterjee | Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) | ||
| Sam,Wines | NRDC | Dear Members of the Climate Action Council: Please accept these 1,835 public comments from members and online activists of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supporting the Climate Action Council’s draft scoping plan that will help New York meet its goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, as mandated by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). New Yorkers are already experiencing the pains of the climate crisis, but the draft Scoping Plan is a much needed and serious plan to stop the worst of the effects of climate change. It outlines a clear path to a science-based, deliberate, and cost-effective transition that invests in a cleaner, healthier, and more equitable New York by: - Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources of electricity - Switching from fossil fuels burned in buildings to clean and efficient heating, hot water, and induction cooking - Investing in transportation electrification and better public transit - Reducing reliance on cars by investing in walking paths and bike lanes, and rethinking land use to be friendlier to non-vehicular modes of transportation We hope that the final plan will be further strengthened by additional strategies to reduce climate-harming emissions from incinerators and discourage the proliferation of fossil-fuel based single-use plastics. If implemented, this plan will help stop the worst of the effects of climate change, clean up our air and prevent hundreds of thousands of respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, and create over 200,000 good paying clean energy jobs. Not to mention, it will cement New York's status as a leader on climate action by creating a carbon-free green economy. Thank you for drafting a bold and ambitious Climate Scoping Plan that is a great step toward tackling the climate crisis and protecting the health of New Yorkers. | |
| Richard,Mason | RETIRED | What SNOWFLAKES came up with this idea. While I believe in exploring Energy Alternatives, I believe this can not be achieved for as many as 50 years from now. These are the same people that: 1. Ruined our economy through restriction on Gas and Oil. 2. Gave everyone money except people that need it like small businesses. 3. Created the worst inflation in 40 years. 4. Are populating the US with foreign who legally have not right to be here. It;s against the law. 5. Illegally Transporting illegals to City, Town, and States within the U.S. Send them all to SF or Washing ton. 6. Created an atmosphere where we are now laugh at v being the most respected nation in the world. I would like to see them transported to Mexico and Drill baby Drill. | |
| Frankie,Lede | First and foremost, I'd like to thank those involved with the creation of the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan for their time and effort. It is crucial that the EV incentive programs outlined in Chapter 11 have aggressive public outreach strategies in order to achieve their goals. While many NYS residents are aware of EVs, many are not aware of the state's plans to increase their sales and usage, which is a barrier (given the size of the NYS population) to achieving the Ch 11 goals of the Scoping Plan. It is also important that the outreach/promotional language regarding EVs be not only clear, concise and easily understandable, but debunk the many misconceptions regarding the economic feasibility, long-term durability, availability/accessibility of charging infrastructure, and ease-of-use of EVs. In areas where EV charging infrastructure is being built, it is necessary to include locational and how-to-use information/links in such outreach/promotional language. Through emphasizing that all the "pieces being in place", regarding economic feasibility, long-term durability, availability/accessibility of charging infrastructure, and ease-of-use of EVs, the public can feel empowered to make the transition to such vehicles. An area of the fossil fuel to EV transition that needs to be addressed in the final version of the Scoping Plan is what will happen to the fossil-fuel powered vehicles once EVs have been adopted. If we are to avoid further increased of automobile "waste" in landfills and subsequent other forms of contamination/pollution, there needs to be a plan for retrofitting such vehicles or "upcycled" use that will have little to no negative environmental impact. If such a plan is to be included, incentive/rebate programs and public outreach/communications should follow the same formats as those for EVs or improve upon such formats. | ||
| Schuyler,Pulleyn | The Chemours Company FC, LLC | ||
| Tom,Florkowski | retired and a Veteran | I think all of your are NUTS. This is going way to far, your only going to hurt the middle class, poor, and retired people in are state and no way can they and us afford the cost of all this. Your dreamers and living in a fantasy world. All your doing is raising our expenses and cost of living in are state, where it will be unable to raise a family or live herer, our cost of living will sore big time and all your doing is driving us backwards. Who the heck comes up with these stupid ideas. Well, come this November, I hope the voting public finds out about this and votes all you Liberal Progressive Democrats out of office. Everyone I talked to about this feel like me, your way out of touch and trying to destroy the middle class. | |
| mark,koppel | Dear NYSERDA, Helicopters may not seem like much, but the frequency of their flights, right over New York's most crowded places, AND its refuges, like Central Park add up. Unlike airplanes, they fly low, and hover, emit toxic fumes all the time. There is no reason for their existence except as a rich tourist's thrill. If you want to see New Yokr from the air, they can go up of the ever-increasing observatories we have. No helicopters except for emergencies!!! NO sightseeing; NO jaunts to the Hamptons or JFK. Just Emergencies. Thank you. Mark Koppel New York | ||
| Heather,Brown | Sullivan County Office of Sustainable Energy | Please see attached letter with official comments from Sullivan County Office of Sustainable Energy. | |
| Thomas,Bourgeois | New York/New Jersey Combined Heat and Power Technical Assistance Partnership | ||
| Reginald,Allen | I'm not sure who dreams this up, but it's time to come back to reality. You are literally destroying NYS, families, and businesses will flee the state in even higher numbers than they already are doing. You will have nothing left. Please stop this insanity. I ask this on behalf of all of the New Yorkers who plan to stay in the state. I can't wait to retire move south and peace out of the insanity that is called the NYS government. | ||
| Jason,Rearick | According the the US EPA, the overwhelming majority of waste in landfills is not trash people put to the curb, but construction and demolition debris (CDD), which account for around 600 million tons of landfill waste (90 percent comes from demolitions). In my master's thesis (https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/111309) I look at a case study of a state and nationally-protected historic church that was demolished; I distilled some lessons to learn regarding what is considered preservation and what is considered waste. I expand on the notion of building preservation beyond the point when a building is forced to be torn down. Preservation goes beyond saving the structure; it should also include deconstruction by preserving the cultural artifacts as well as the material make up of the building. The material of the building contains so much embodied carbon. To discard this material into a landfill is not only wasteful but adds carbon to our atmosphere as it decomposes and usually calls for a new building to be erected on the former site which forces the carbon-intensive and water-intensive extraction of virgin material, its processing, transport, and erection. Mechanisms to mandate deconstruction and expand building reuse need to be codified to preserve our embedded carbon and limit carbon-intensive resource extraction. A deconstruction mandate that could be phased in over a few years is reachable. Further incentivizing building reuse, especially for tax-exempt entities that cannot take advantage of tax breaks would also be needed. Finally, the most important aspect is data collection. Precise, unambiguous data needs to be taken before a path forward can be laid. DEC's data collection on CDD needs to go down to the address-specific geographic level and the specific amount and types of materials that are coming out of these addresses needs to be measured. I look forward to the new good paying jobs and better environment that will come out of this legislation. | ||
| Thomas,Scheibner | Change is never easy. Industries go away and all our lives change forever! People lose jobs they are comfortable with as their livelihood. They do not transition to a new career easily. We must respect all of that and help each other. This said, change seems to be always at our door. As I travel through Upstate I see many turbines and solar fields. An additional benefit of this distribution of generation goes toward replacement for the many small power plants that have shut down through out the upstate area. We need this new generation in every area of the state to protect us from Power Grid disruption. If power is produced locally within grids the spare generation can be used to feed the grid rather than draw from it. Clean energy allows us to do that. The enormity of this effort is beyond what I can research but I do believe in change with respect for our existing industries. We must work together to transition to a cleaner world. In the old day towns an villages existed on their own. There was little outside daily intervention. Today our lives are intertwined daily with many things across our country and the world. Maybe this change to clean air can help us get back some control in our own communities. We can locally produce and consume our own energy. Not sure big business will let that happen. We all though must change! | ||
| Karim,Beers | This plan is important. Thank you for your leadership. A technical approach to the problems posed under Buildings and Transportation is problematic. Just electrifying buildings and transportation does not address the underlying issues driving ever-increasing consumption--values that promote excessive consumerism and the gratification of the self. Our environment cannot bear the impact of bigger homes, warmer in winter, cooler in summer, with more and more toys and gadgets in them--even if they are all electric. Similarly with cars: our living environment cannot bear everyone driving alone in an electric car 15,000 or more miles a year. With buildings, we need to encourage modest dwellings, setting temperatures at reasonable settings, and encouraging energy efficiency in daily actions. Luxury taxes on homes larger than a certain size, on second homes, or on energy-guzzlers like heated pools? Through the use of AMI, incentivize setback temperatures that are reasonable through discounts, and discourage temperatures that force people in offices to wear a sweater in summer!? With transportation, we need to put way more attention on forms that work for everyone. EVs neither work for everyone--many people don’t or can’t drive (too poor, too young, too old)--nor are they great for the environment or for vibrant communities. Walking, biking, transit, carpooling--these need significant incentives. The values of contentment, of service to others, of thinking about the needs of the whole, of which we are one part, of temperance, of modesty--these will help us address these issues in the long-term and should be suffused throughout the action plan? If we are unable to embed these values into our society, then even if we electrify everything, individuals seeking more gratification and businesses seeking greater profits will figure out new ways of using more and more resources that pollute the atmosphere, warm the planet, and degrade our soil and living environment. | ||
| Sean,Shortell | NextEra Energy Transmission New York | Hello, Attached are comments from NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. (NEETNY) on the Climate Action Council's Draft Scoping Plan. NEETNY thanks the council for their efforts. As the council considers comments from stakeholders, please do not hesitate to reach out to NEETNY if we can be a resource on the topic of transmission development and construction. Sincerely, Sean Shortell Director of External Affairs NextEra Energy Transmission New York [email protected] (518) 760-3418 | |
| Rose,Macleod | I’ve lived and worked my whole life in Queens and love NYC, but unfortunately, the noise from low flying helicopters and seaplanes, literally directly over my head, has severely curtailed my ability to spend any time in my yard, my windows remain closed, I’m unable to entertain friends and family and honestly, have been deprived of sleep . It has totally disrupted my ability to enjoy the peace and comfort of my own home. Many say, well, you live close to an airport you should be used to it, but that noise is nowhere near as disruptive and also, it stops at a reasonable hour. I haven’t even included the fact of what may happen should these helicopters and seaplanes malfunction and crash. Above all, why should a privileged few be permitted to destroy the mental well-being of tax paying, law abiding citizens every single day for months on end, totally ruining our Summer? At the very least, flight times need to be established, routes should be directed to fly over water instead of neighborhoods. | ||
| Mary,Boffey | I am appalled that these drastic measures are being considered. Did anyone really review the financial ramifications to the average US citizen. There is no way people will be able to afford all these electric appliances and cars. This has not been well thought out. Please reconsider what you are doing to the US citizens with this outlandish proposal. I cannot see this happening in the future. What about all the air traffic. You cannot expect planes to be electric. I recently read an article how in Japan there are thousands of electric cars dead in a field due to battery failure. In addition, there are thousands of electric car fires. This is not a safe situation. Please reconsider | ||
| Francis,Walsh | I am concerned that the Climate Council Draft Scoping Plan does not adequately address the health needs of New York State residents such as myself. Specifically, the Plan, as written, fails to adequately address the public health issue of noise pollution. I have cardiac artery disease. A Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Furthermore, helicopters, which are enormously loud, and whose presence over New York City has increased dramatically over the past few years, create low vibration roars by rotating blades. Due to their low altitude flights over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways, we are being exposed regularly to a dangerous environmental threat. Long overlooked, transportation pollution of all kinds is contributing to an overall decline of our environment. Certainly, every source of NY transportation pollution must be held to a new and urgent environmental standard. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must stress the creation of low-noise, low pollution environments, statewide. It must include an immediate ban of loud, carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. This step will guarantee a safer, healthier environment for all New Yorkers. It willl be an important step to responding to recent scientific research (as mentioned above) and protecting people like me, whose health is being challenged by unneeded helicopter noise, to live longer and more productive lives in our State. Thank you for reading my comments. | ||
| Jude,Woodarek | I am opposed to the Climate Action Plan in its entirety. This plan should be abandoned completely. The free market should dictate what consumers choose to utilize for energy consumption, not the government. If products and technology were affordable and readily available the consumer would chose the best option. New York State should focus on reducing government spending and taxes, not extreme climate action plans. | ||
| Paul ,Pallas | New York Association of Public Power | ||
| Judy,allen | Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition | I strongly urge the CLCPA be adopted by New York State to hasten our independence from fossil fuels and nuclear energy and propel us into the renewable climate leadership that the rest of the country and look to and be inspired to create their own Plans. Thank you. | |
| Lara,Birnback | |||
| Riki,Harris | Thank you to the CAC and associated groups for creating this impressive plan! It is an inspiration. I must highlight that the inclusion of economy-wide strategies is such an important addition to the draft plan, and by including economy-wide carbon pricing we can help ensure that we meet NY's goals. I strongly recommend the following: 1. a price on carbon -- countless economists and scientists say is the single most effective policy to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon pricing would also complement or increase the effectiveness of many other recommended policies and programs. 2. a carbon fee and dividend program as the framework for an economy-wide strategy, where a fee or tax is imposed at the source of any fossil fuel generated or imported into the state, with most of the revenue returned to low- and middle-income households to offset higher energy costs. 3. a carbon price that starts low and rise gradually each year. This, along with returning revenue to households, is necessary to provide people and businesses reasonable time to transition to cleaner energy sources in response to clear, predictable pricing signals. Please consider - carbon pricing is preferred over other alternatives because it is straightforward, non-regulatory, and more price-certain, which is better for businesses and individual consumers. Additionally, carbon pricing in NY must apply to more than the electricity sector through RGGI. Absent a price on carbon in other sectors, electricity costs are higher relative to fossil energy costs – which could slow adoption of sector-based recommendations for accelerated electrification of buildings (i.e., heat pumps) and transportation (i.e., zero-emission vehicles). Thank you! | ||
| Erin,Kelly | Scholastic | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | |
| James,Newman | NOCO LLC | ||
| Loren,Prucnal | Village of Alden | Being the Mayor of a small Village, these climate goals would be an incredible burden on our local taxpayers. Our local municipal building, our Department of Public works buildings and our Sewer treatment plant are all heated with natural gas. The Village would have to build new structures to house Electric vehicles in the winter months to keep them warm and charged. These climate goals might sound great in large cities and metropolitan areas, but would just strangle the rural home owners. I also know that most our local homes are heated with natural gas, as well used for cooking and water heating. With the climate change mandates the home owners would have an additional cost when they have to replace a gas fired appliance. I urge the members of the New York State legislature to take a vacation in the rural areas of New York State and talk to the Residents. Has the legislature looked into the update to the power grid? We have already seen problems in the nation with our aging infrastructure. Maybe these mandates are the reason that New York State leads the nation in Population Decreases, as everyone I know and talk to plan on retiring out of state.. its Time to Wake Up.... | |
| Diane,Gross | As someone with an MPH in Policy and Management and 30 years experience working in health equity in the state of New York, I feel strongly that we must create an ambitious plan to combat climate change and protect public health. The adverse effects of climate change fall disproportionately on low-income communities and black families, and the CLCPA was created to end this injustice. The Scoping Plan must include funding for the electrification of buildings in low-income areas to prevent the negative health implications of fossil-fuels in homes. Communities near industrial factories have higher rates of asthma, and other chronic illnesses, and these plants are regularly placed in low-income communities. Those who suffer from chronic illness are at higher risk for the health effects associated with climate change and most be protected and supported by the state. Furthermore, the state must commit significant resources to workforce development in green jobs for these communities with the support and expertise of community-based organizations. Continuing to allow the fossil-fuel industry to put the health of the citizens of the state, especially those residing in historically underserved communities, is a mass injustice. In finalizing this plan, I urge you to focus on the public health implications and the importance of equity in the transition to a green economy. | ||
| Roger,Suter | Hi, this plan looks excessive. I will not have a choice of what type of vehicle I can drive. Taking away of all natural gas will turn out to be very expensive for everyone in New York state. The cost of electricity will increase and the cost of rebuilding the electrical grid will be passed on to the consumer. Do you not remember when they tried to heat with electric in the1980's. Everybody heating bill were very high. I work with heat pumps are you going to have water to air heat pumps? Then everyone will need two wells or the water usage will so high we will drop the lake levels. How are the people in the northern parts of the state going to heat their homes and stay warm? I leave in western New York and we don't get any benefits for the Niagara Falls power project. That electricity is shipped to NY city. You won't have enough electrical power to keep NY city on line. Other state already have rolling black outs is that what is next for New York. I look forward to you actually thinking and working for all the people of New York state. Not just one small environmental group. Since I have property on lake Ontario I already felt the pain of that environmental group and almost lost my cottage. Roger Suter | ||
| Cynthia,Evans | This plan would be a DISASTER, please vote against it. It would force us to go to electric heat which is extremely expensive. Gas is plentiful and much cheaper than electric heat and hot water. We wouldn't be able to buy gas appliances after 2030? Between this plan and more and more electric cars the electric companies won't be able to meet the demand. Guess what, almost all electric is generated by burning fossil fuels. | ||
| Richard ,Fisher | I find it totally irresponsible for our government to force a green climate agenda at the expense of New Yorkers, to push this state to a green economy when we are no where ready. Natural gas is clean and inexpensive and abundant and doesn’t require tax payers to subsidize it we don’t need to be another California where no one can afford a home because of the additional expense is it the states objective to force average New Yorkers out and just leave the wealthy, if so there doing a good job the state has already lost two seats in congress. I didn’t mention our power grid wouldn’t be able to handle the extra power needed wind and solar at best is unreliable not to mention we would have to depend on China for panels and the special metals to make them. this has to be the most irresponsible policy’s ever put forward by the geniuses in Albany. | ||
| Donald,Kuhn | EROSION TECHNOLOGY CONTRO | This plan will expedite the exodus from NYS. The costs are low for what is planned. NYS is not competitive now and will be less after this is implemented. The environmental impact of implementing this plan is under stated. Many states and countries are rethinking the conversion to non fossil fuels after early failures. Availability, reliability, dependability have all come under scrutiny after many failures, Refer to Germany, France, Sweden, and Texas among others. If all other states and countries do not implement this drastic change why should NYS be the sacrificial lamb? The GHG emissions from the USA are on a decline caused by the implementation of existing regulations. Also, a lot of citizens in NYS can not afford the expenses mandated by the proposed changes. | |
| Darryle,Ulama | Bloom Energy | Please see Bloom Energy's comments attached. | |
| Amelia,Gross | As a young adult who grew up, and now attends school, in New York I was excited to see the passage of the CLCPA and the commitment of New York state to fighting the climate crisis. To actually achieve the goals of the Climate Act, we must focus on renewable energy and electrification. This starts with ending the spread of all fossil-fuels, promoting the electrification of buildings, and mandating this for new construction. Many people are underinformed on the impending crisis with the climate, and are unaware of the health risks they face. It is the responsibility of the state to provide education on the dangers of fossil fuels and the benefits of renewable energy, especially as it pertains to the disproportionate burden on low-income and black families. I urge you to make this plan as ambitious as possible, with set dates for emission reduction goals, and a real plan to support disadvantaged communities. | ||
| Juliana,Sohn | Hello, New York has recently been a real leader in climate legislation and I am so pleased that we are taking climate and environmental issues seriously and working hard to combat our warming planet. Key to this endeavor is getting off of fossil fuels and I wanted to share that even if this means causing some disruption to my life, like switching from gas to electric or induction stoves or separating my garbage to compost, I am willing and eager to be part of the chance and will support my politicians and representative when they too fight for a cleaner and healthier future for all. | ||
| Craig,Foster, MBA | this is an irresponsible plan, just being more strict than anyone else for the sake of campaign speeches is fraudulent. you dont care about the people, the costs, common sense alternatives, solutions, only politics. i am sure this will be proven by the fact you will disregard my comments since i do not agree with you. this is not the right course of action and is being done for the wrong true reasons. | ||
| Blythe,Danner | Board Member, Environmental Advoc ates NY | Dear Climate Action Council, As a board member of Environmental Advocates NY, I am writing to urge the Council to adopt the strongest Climate Action Plan possible that will transition our economy off fossil fuels to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change and further climate and environmental justice by protecting disadvantaged communities which are the hardest hit by the climate crisis. Specifically, I endorse Scenario 3 – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and depends on the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. I am pleased to see the plan’s acknowledgement that achieving deep decarbonization goals is feasible by mid-century with electrification overtaking combustion across the major sectors of our economy. The final plan should include a comprehensive polluter pays approach with rebates to fund implementation of the climate law; integrate all comments, concerns, and ideas of the Climate Justice Working Group; and reject bad ideas within the draft plan that include maintaining the same amount of waste incineration or “waste-to-energy” and continued combustion of fuels like biogas or fossil gas. Implementing the Climate Law under Scenario 3 means New York’s air will be cleaner, climate-altering emissions will be reduced, and disadvantaged communities and workers will be supported in a just transition. The economic benefits outweigh the economic costs of inaction by $90 and $120 billion over 30 years, which confirms Scenario 3 is the right pathway to meeting our climate mandates, in addition to environmental justice considerations like reduced co-pollutants. I am extremely proud that the CLCPA is the law of the land in New York State and is one of the most ambitious climate laws in the country centering equity and justice for frontline and disadvantaged communities.The Final Scoping Plan should match the vision of the social and environmental champions who drafted it. Thank you again. | |
| Stephen,Bregande | Seneca Falls Specialties & Logistics Co., Inc | I believe the objectives for these transitions are reckless and revolutionary, not evolutionary. We need cost effective viable options to successfully survive and succeed. These transitional objectives are nice goalsI , but objectives being specific and time bound need viable and immediate cost effective solutions that don't exist without straining or shutting down most manufacturing businesses that can not operate under the limited alternative energies and that costs to implement. Its appalling that these conference room plans are primarily generated by scientists, politicians, climate initiators and not the participation or the masses of manufacturers affected by these unrealistic plans who employ millions of people whose employment will be put immediately at risk in addition to the ability to operate. Please reconsider your approach, participants and time table. Stephen Bregande President, CEO Seneca Falls Specialties & Logistics Co. , Inc. | |
| Denise ,Ackerman | I disagree with the attempt to halt natural gas delivery to home and business. I disagree with the attempt to halt sale of gas powered vehicles! I am concerned about the push for electric vehicles when no one is considering the fuel necessary to produce these large batteries, the life span and cost of the batteries AND the fact that our GRID cannot handle the electric needs to CHARGE these electric vehicles!!!! How about making use of America’s energy resources rather than dependence on foreign resources! | ||
| Kathy,Andrukat | To Whom it May Concern, This will increase costs to residents across the board. We were in a far better position a year and a half ago to absorb costs. Policies have now strapped every New Yorker. Now is definitely not the time for this. Fixed income residents have lost years of savings from their retirement funds and now to absorb the costs from this is asking far too much. The amount of for sale signs in my Neighborhood has exploded due to increased costs. Please don’t make me feel I have to leave too. I love NY. Thank you for your time Kathy | ||
| Dawn,Timm | Niagara County | ||
| Elizabeth,Nicholas | My concern is for the poor and middle income residents of NYS. Not everyone can afford an electric car, electric lawnmower, pay to change over their heating/air-conditioning systems, convert over their gas stove, and the list goes on. The goal is good as long as the goal is to save the earth for people to inhabit. But, the technology is not up to snuff yet, nor the cost for people to obtain the new technology. Only those who are wealthy can manage all this in the time-frame you have set. Do you plan to just let the those who heat with wood, coal, and natural gas just freeze to death in the winter? Or perhaps the only folks that matter live in NYC high rises and the "country bumpkins" lives are meaningless. People are leaving NYS. Businesses are leaving NYS. The technology needs to be sound. We don't want rolling blackouts like other states have. Fossil fuels will not last forever and we need to think of generations to come. I have many friends who have solar panels for their homes and wind-turbines. None of them do a good enough job. They have to supplement with fossil fuels. Work on the technology to perfect it before you mandate it. The wealthy can afford all this new technology, (that only works so/so). The is no "justice" in making people who are struggling to make ends meet not be able to make ends meet or give up even more of what comfort they might have. Please, take things slowly and consider people's lives. We aren't all wealthy. | ||
| Paul ,Thiesing | Self | Does this state want to step up to the plate and provide a healthy and sustainable future for all that live here. Or do you want to be complicit in the dismantling of the welfare of all generations present and future. Give us opportunities, pass these common sense laws and allow the citizens of New York to show the rest of the country and the world what we can do when we show up for people, give us young people the opportunity to create a better world, for it is possible. Or continue down this path, watch the poverty stricken communities perish one by one, pull bodies out of flood waters, watch the food become scarcer, the fires more intense. Now is the time for bravery, not incrementalism, not cowardice, be a governing body for the people by the people. | |
| Lee,Alexander | Catskill Center for Conservation & Development | See letter (uploaded) | |
| Kyle,Collins | H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. (“HQUS”) | ||
| Tara,Litwin Snyder | I do not believe the elimination of natural gas or gas fuelled vehicles is the answer to climate concerns. The cost my family would need to cover to make these changes is too costly. I do not believe Democrats have this states best interest in mind with these unreasonable climate change goals. I do not think the state or federal government should be subsidizing and manipulating these changes. I do not think the current electrical grid can handle these changes. I am pro making improvements to help the environment but I am against these forced, unreasonable goals about eliminating natural gas and gas fuelled vehicles. | ||
| Michelle,Gawel | Save Cambria Case # 21-02104 | I did not move into the beautiful township of Cambria to have solar panels near me. This is an agriculture community and we all want it stay as such. There are many places To install solar panels but Cambria is not one of them. | |
| Peter,Collinge | As a retired math professor from Henrietta, NY, these are my comments on the economics of climate action: - Because of decades of inaction, the cost of action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is substantial, yet the cost of further inaction is even greater. We must support measures to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We must bear the cost of doing so by directing an appropriate amount of the State budget towards climate action. We must implement market mechanisms and regulations that respectively provide resources and guide behaviors to help drive down the level of emissions without adversely impacting economic security of our residents and small businesses. - I support a carbon price with a well-communicated gradual increase over time to enable consumers and businesses to adjust. A portion of the dividends from the carbon price should be reserved for distribution to low- and moderate-income households in addition to making distributions to disadvantaged communities as required by the plan, as well as to greenhouse gas reduction measures. - For cap-and-invest programs, I support investment in greenhouse gas reduction to offset some of the price increases associated with purchase of permits, and I support prioritization of disadvantaged communities for greenhouse gas reductions. - In combination with a Clean Energy Supply Standard, the State must incentivize zero-emission alternatives economy wide. When consumers have affordable zero-emission or low-emission options, the effect of the Clean Energy Supply Standard will be accelerated. | ||
| Cédric,Gottfried | Transportation : biofuel is not a solution as it uses farmlands that are necessary for quality food production. The objective should focus be on reduction of individual mobility, by providing as many alternatives as possible and bringing closer together workplaces and homes. Fees on weight and size of vehicles are necessary to reduce the average size of vehicles in order to better share the road with other transportation modes. Use of helicopters over large population centers for leasure purposes should be banned. Buildings: progress can be made immediately by having landlords share utility bills with tenants. Landlords would be incentivized to fix or replace innefficient material (single-glazed windows) and tenants would moderate their use. Single-gazed windows should be banned as soon as possible. Every bought or rented property should come with a way to block sun from windows (heat-blocking curtains, shutter, blinds...). AC and space heaters should be banned from new buildings and rehabilitated buildings with appropriate insulation levels. Use of AC should be forbidden in the winter (people often use it when the central heating is too hot). Landlords of multi-apartment buildings should install device to individualize heat in every apartment. Replacement of fossil-fuel based heating appliances by fossil-free ones should not wait the end of the appliance's life. Have regularly mandatory inspections in buildings to see if there are sources of energy waste that could be easily fixed by landlords. Too much energy is wasted that could be fixed now with simple actions. Efforts should focus on existing buildings. Electricity: retired gas plants shouldn't be allowed to go back into service (ex of Bitcoin farms). Land use: organic farming, conservation agriculture and agroecology should be encouraged as they capture more carbon than conventional agriculture. Overall, the plan should focus on measures that could immediately improve the life and health of New Yorkers | ||
| Gerald,O'Connor | This Scoping Plan is THE most pernicious documents I’ve ever seen with respect to the economy of New York State. I take issue with virtually ALL of your so-called “facts”, starting with the “fact” that the term scientific consensus is utterly meaningless. Our economy and commonweal depend overwhelmingly on access to cheap, reliable energy. This plan is a prescription for neither. This will result in a dramatic increase in energy costs, a sharp decrease in grid reliability, and a steep decrease in our standard of living. I can only assume that this committee, as well as the entirety of the bureaucratic state, is under the influence of mass formation psychosis. That is the kindest thing I can say. Otherwise, I’m left to conclude that our overlords are virulently anti-Capitalist, and indeed, quite anti-American. If we still had any semblance of a democracy left, we’d have a vigorous public debate, followed by a statewide referendum, with the “Plan” and committee existence on the ballot. | ||
| T,Michael | NY state has an extremely lengthy cold climate. Natural gas & propane is THE most efficient and effective means to heat our homes. Challenging weather, ice storms & heavy snowfall, causes electrical outages frequently! There can be days to weeks before power is restored. The cost involved to transition to all electric is extremely unaffordable, too. To add circuit amps, electric heaters, power charging stations to our home is unattainable! This is not a game, but a real disaster waiting to happen. There are more home fires from faulty electrical wiring, than from any other heating source!! Be realistic & come to your senses that this should be an alternative NOT for all building structures. | ||
| pamela,robb | There is such a thing as going to far overboard and going totally to electric is totally overboard. There should be both gas and electric. There is no reason to go totally electric. I can't even afford my electric bill now and we have a two family income. With the price of gas and food right now its hard to have money left to pay bills. The average working person has to decide now, how to pay there normal bills and have enough left to pay for food. You are going to find people going without medicine and food just to pay for food. Working people who are paying high taxes so that others can sit at home and collect medicaid and their services is draining New York. Taxes are killing us. I have never thought I would have to think about moving out of state but it is looking to be something I am going have to consider. Our representatives are supposed to be looking out for us but all they seem to think about is what will get them elected. We need a representative that stands up for New York and says NO to total electric. I won't buy an electric car. That is not for everyone. Open back up the pipe line the president closed. Use our natural gas. Working class people are in need of a break from all the taxes and cost of living. Farmers also need a break. The small farms are bought up by big farms. Stop paying farmers not to farm but pay them to keep producing as much as they can. That helps them and the consumer. Local farmers need help to keep going. From farm to table should be a New York statement that would keep us far above any others. Local government is so the good old boys club that nothing is done unless it suits them. The annual income keeps going up for those in charge and the working class stays under paid. How these people stay in power is unknown to me. New York needs changes and they need to start now. Ask regular working people and listen to what they have to say. If everyone moves, then there will not be a New York left. | ||
| Mark,Davis | hello, thinking out loud. No new car sale by 2035, no new gas appliances before that. It is to my understanding that the electrical grid in the Unites States is fragile. If so, then it is fragile in New York. Why are people thinking of the end results instead of the beginning of the process. The grid needs to get fixed first before these ideas are set into motion to be able to handle the things to come. No gas appliances or cars, either I move out of the state or buy these items out of state. New York losses state revenue. I just retired and will never be able to afford an all electric car. I would be in for no new construction with gas. I am for us to go to only hybrid vehicle sale. I hear to make these batteries, its more harmful to the environment. Then they are not recyclable, so to dispose of them they are buried, Seems to me we are repeating what the generation did to us with nuclear weapons or waste. Let's not make the same mistakes. Thx for your time | ||
| Tiffany,Latino-Gerlock | MACNY - The Manufacturers Association of Central New York | ||
| Peter,Collinge | As a retired math professor from Henrietta, NY, I support the goals and most of the details of the scoping plan. My specific comments on the electricity sector are: - I wholeheartedly support the plan to zero out emissions from electricity generation by 2040 and the use of regulatory options and market mechanisms to carry out this plan while maintaining reliability and affordability. - I strongly support NYSERDA’s renewable energy procurement targets, and we need targets for siting of renewables. I strongly support building renewable energy capacity and gradually shutting down gas-fired power plants while maintaining reliability and affordability. I believe in easing opposition to siting of renewables through public education and other methods. - As NY is situated near two of the Great Lakes, pumped storage hydropower should be considered in addition to battery storage technology. I support investment in R&D for long-term energy storage, grid technology, and novel zero-emissions electricity sources. - I strongly oppose blending “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas” for wintertime use, since these are likely to serve only as an excuse for fossil fuel interests to maintain their pipeline infrastructure. Instead, the expansion of nuclear powered generation, at least for now, would be acceptable if needed to maintain reliability. | ||
| Dave Inder,Comar | Please see attached correspondence. Respectfully submitted. Just Atonement Inc. | ||
| Heather ,Kariman | My first comment is how is there only one more day left for public opinion. This is the first I am hearing about it. We should have an option in what we buy and not only have to buy electric. Can our electric grid handle this? Will we have rolling blackouts like California? This is a bad plan. | ||
| Patricia,Cerro-Reehil | NY Water Environment Association | See Attached Letter | |
| Stephen,Haber | SK Haber Capital Mgmt | Gentlemen Harvard Medical School performed Definitive studies a few years ago demonstrating incontrovertible facts and statistical results establiishing the clearly dangerous effects overhead helicopter noise has on specimen populations.To sum it up people get immensely more stress, cardiac events, and heart attacks directly because of helicopter noise. I for one experience immensely invasive feelings of dread when the thunderous pitch of helicopter engines fly overhead. It's the last risk a huge population like that of New York City should be exposed tp dozens if not hundreds of times a day as we pursue our livelihoods and peaceful lives. And apparently 95% of the Blade flights and others are all because some multi millionaire wants to get to his estate in the Hamptons a little bit faster. In addition the amount of air pollutants from helicopter fuel combustion is mind-boggling. Please have a heart an d BAN ALL NON ESSENTIAL HELICOPETER FLIGHTS FROM NEW YORK CITY AIR SPACE!!! rEGARDS, Steve Haber | |
| Peter,Collinge | As has become evident during the course of the comment period for the draft scoping plan, there is a crucial need for specific outreach aimed at correcting misinformation regarding the provisions of the plan. The campaign could be similar to the one mounted for Covid, in which trusted officials or community The specifics could vary depending on the audience, but the prevailing message would be that the scoping plan will save money in the long run, both at the household level and at the state level; and that more jobs would be created than destroyed. Different messaging for different audiences could stress the health benefits, the lowering and stabilizing of transportation costs overall, and the lowering of heating and cooling costs long term through geothermal heat pumps. Those of us who have been paying attention know that this bill is not only crucial to combat global warming, but will provide many benefits to the population of New York State. We need to make sure that our citizens understand this. As of now, it is not clear that they do, and the Climate Act will not succeed unless this changes. | ||
| James,Jarnot | James Jarnot Design | Helicopter transportation/sightseeing industry's negative effect on NY's climate! Nonessential helicopter traffic and heliports are reducing quality of life on the Upper West Side. As of 2016, helicopters, not cars, are the biggest source of lead emissions in the U.S. When upgrades to automobile engines eventually phased out the need for cars to use fully leaded fuel, the same could not be said for helicopters, which utilize piston engines that require leaded fuel. Please take action to stop the chop. | |
| Suzanne,Wertz | |||
| Karen,Spencer | Kudos for this climate action plan! It is about time someone in government took this earth seriously. | ||
| Maya,Bon | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Council’s draft Scoping Plan. My name is Maya Bon, and I live in Claverack, New York. I would firstly like to express my support for Scenario 3 in the draft Scoping Plan – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. I am here today to briefly share my comments on the Draft Scoping Plan and offer specific recommendations to help ensure the Climate Action Council prepares the strongest final plan for my community and New York State. Implementing the Climate Law means New York’s air will be cleaner, the state will reduce climate-altering emissions, and there will be a plan to invest in a just transition for workers and historically disadvantaged communities. The economic benefits of implementing the plan outweigh the economic costs of inaction by between $90 and $120 billion. This includes accounting for expected damage to sectors across the economy and public health costs of inaction. New Yorkers are already facing the impacts of climate change, like more intense and frequent storms (i.e., more super storms like Hurricanes Ida and Sandy), changing seasons that impact New York’s agriculture sector, and dangerous heat spikes in the summers. Low-income communities and communities of color are suffering even more from harmful pollution from the reliance of our economy on fossil fuels. In sum, the faster we move to full electrification the fewer people will get sick, the fewer lives will be lost, the more jobs we will create and the faster we will reap the net economic benefits. | ||
| Nick,Nichter | This will put the cherry on top of completely ruining New York. A 7 year old could figure out how/why the increased demand on the electric grid from these policies will result in grid failures/power outages, not to mention the ridiculous increase in costs that come with renewable energy. This is right up in line with our states & local governments inept and overreach of authority when it came to the Covid "pandemic". I'm absolutely ashamed and embarrassed to be from a state with such horrible leadership. AT ALL LEVELS. Clearly we're going the same route as California, congratulations. | ||
| Peter,Collinge | #NAME? | ||
| Ellen,Pope | Otsego 2000, Inc. | ||
| Arlene,Hassenfratz | By making this country dependent upon electricity you will be putting us in great danger. It's proven that our electric grid can, and has been, hacked. With a single click of a switch, bomb or EMP, we are put into darkness. You would be putting us into the hands of our enemies. If there was a war or EMP, we are gone. Also, with electricity you would be making us more dependent on other countries. We don't have all the raw materials to make the batteries for electric cars; and the wind turbines are made in other countries. Besides they keep needing repairs and replaced. We have enough fossil fuel to keep us independent. And what about "Global Warming". This earth has gone through global warming before; just look far enough back into history. It wasn't caused by fossil fuel; it was caused by the sun's cycle. Just ask astronomers. I have more to say, but who is going to read this. Your decision is already made. We don't count. Respectfully, Arlene Hassenfratz | ||
| James,wood | We are on this planet for a very short time. We must think of generations to come - our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and theirs. Right on New York for your leadership! Keep it up!! | ||
| Alexis,Arkus-Duntov | This commet is specific to a massive increase in helicopter traffic over south Brooklyn. I noticed an uptick in chopper traffic around 2018 but since the pandemic of spring 2020, it’s gotten out of control. The noise is so loud that my windows shake. These are not medical, news, or law enforcement flights. They are too scheduled. Fridays and Sundays are particularly loud. Why do we have to put up with this? It’s so disruptive of a peaceful quality of life. What is to stop this business from scaling up? At what point does it become ok for this neighborhood to sound like a war zone all the time? The convenience of a small few should not outweigh the quality of life of the thousands on the ground who have to put up with deafeningly loud helicopter traffic that is also apparently terrible from an emissions perspective. This seems like a no-brainer. -Alexis | ||
| Katherine,Miller | I live on W 74 St on the Upper West Side. The number of helicopters constantly swarming above my building is not simply overwhelming, it is disturbing. Every 5-10 minutes there is a gang of 5-6 tourist helicopters from NJ (namely FlyNYON) that circle above my building and Central Park for at least 10 minutes at below 1,000 ft height. Sometimes they hover for 10-15 minutes. Sometimes at -40 to -74 kts. The noise is deafening, it’s like being bombed from above. And this happens every single day. During the week and on weekends, including Sundays. God forbid it’s a sunny weekend, there is no option to sleep in, the helicopters start attacking UWS as early as 6-7am and continue flying until 10pm and later at night. On top of the pest of tourist helicopters, the commuter helicopters use Upper West Side as their route to Long Island at any time of day or night. Those fly even lower at 400-500ft. People have constant headaches and mental health issues due to the helicopter noise. My family has been suffering for over a year now, all of us have sleeping disorders, PTSD, constant anxiety and other mental health issues. The air is unbreathable. Besides, helicopters still use hazardous leaded fuel, because FAA and USDOT refuse to regulate small aviation. Along the Hudson river, the helicopters fly at 200-300 ft very close to Riverside Dr, when the regulations allow only in the middle of the river and only above 1,500 ft. The noise from those low flying helicopters can be heard in Brooklyn. People on the Upper West Side literally can’t enjoy their apartments, let alone outdoor space or parks. The problem is that no one follows those regulations and on the other hand, no one holds those perpetrators accountable. The amount of 311 complaints that I left is uncountable. I’ve sent letters to Mayor, Governor, FAA, and many other public officials. Nobody responded. Nobody is willing to take any action. The government completely gave up on its citizens and taxpayers. | ||
| Eric,Keller | Nuclear power is safe, clean and effective. It should be front and center of this plan. Micro-reactor technology is looking very promising. I don't want to see my state plastered in solar panels and windmills, it's too much already. Eric Keller, CEST, LEED AP Sr. Electrical Engineer | ||
| Sean,Pantling | You will never be able to establish an infrastructure that can produce enough electricity especially 100% renewables to support this "all-electric" concept you idiots think we're only 5 years away from being able to handle. Congratulations, your political legacy will be driving this state into a whole in which it will not recover, well done. The residential infrastructure in the city cannot support the adding of electric washers, dryers and furnaces plus car chargers and AC units to each residence. Literally not possible without spending billions and restructuring the entire city. This idea is about as poorly thought out as the Covid 19 response. Try talking to professionals that actually work in these fields, maybe National Grid or NYSEG could probably tell you most solar power produced doesn't even back feed onto to the grid unless producing over a certain threshold for an extended period of time. Since when did Natural Gas become unclean? Our Carbon footprint is currently higher than ever with our fossil fuel usage decreasing more than ever? Where are these magical results you promise? Have fun with rolling blackouts and pushing your Tesla 50 miles to the nearest charger that works. D------------. | ||
| Maureen,Gaffney | Orange Environment Inc | Chap 11 Transportation-Orange Environment Inc (OEI) supports strengthening the State’s Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act to recommend community inter-municipal transit services between towns & commerce areas (i.e..local malls, medical pavilions), and upgrading local roads & bicycle paths instead of spending that promotes sprawl and unnecessary road enhancements such as the 3rd lane expansion of Rte 17. Chap 16 Waste- OEI supports upgrading the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle policy and Producer Extended Responsibility laws to properly fund recycling efforts and mandate the reduction of waste and landfill use and the number of incinerator facilities and transfer stations. Chap 19 Land Use - OEI supports: inclusion of climate change impacts in Environmental Impact Assessments in development proposals; stronger legislation requiring consideration of climate mitigation, adaptation and resilience, and biodiversity in comprehensive plans; and a statewide Community Preservation Act to protect against development sprawl contradictory to CLCPA. Chap 13&20 - Electricity & Local Government-OEI supports local governments connecting homes, businesses and community institutions with clean energy through community scale projects such as microgrids and district systems which would contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions and associated health impacts by eliminating the need for fossil fuel plants. We support scoping plan inclusion and state financing of local multi-faceted projects with non-fossil fuel generation techs and a new NYS grant category for multi-faceted projects where recipients would receive grants for all parts of their projects at the same time. This will facilitate projects with multiple co-benefits, encourage stacking of solutions, and bring efficiencies into preliminary studies, and thereby speed up GHG reductions and our ability to meet CLCPA goals. | |
| Jordan,Grills | Enough is enough. 99% of New Yorkers will not be able to afford your new energy plan. This state barely sees enough sunlight to use solar power. And you’re going to take natural gas out of existing homes in 2024…with winters growing colder and more harsh every year…all because a green energy company donates money to your fraudulent campaigns. If you take natural gas away from houses by 2024, you will have a citizens revolt. Go ahead and try. | ||
| Deborah ,Head | This legislation and every piece including gun control coming out of Albany is a direct and constant attack on our rural way of life, livelihood, our safety and financial wellbeing. It is unrealistic and dangerous to think that rural residents can heat their homes with electricity, safely drive to work and bus children to school on roads that are sometimes hard to navigate with trucks. WNY and North Country climates cannot support geotherm due to winter ground temps and I know no one who can afford to heat their homes with electricity. If passed, this bill will be the final hole in the sinking ship of our dairy industry and will drive the remaining businesses out of NY. The tax base is already unfairly burdened on homeowners and we cannot take anymore. Our agricultural, industrial, construction and supply chain logistics cannot survive within the confines of this bill. Natural gas is the cleanest form of energy and their is no indication of it running out. This supports the fact that this is about control and down state voter pandering. There are mountains of broken windmill parts piled up on the road side of I-86. Politicians don't want to see this as it doesn't support their agendas. My family have well paying jobs but are fearful of the economy and bills like this that further destroy our beautiful state. If Albany continues down this path and Lee Zeldin is not elected we and others will be forced to leave rather than sink with a state being destroyed by socialists masquerading as democrats. VOTE NO | ||
| Matthew,Conrad | Republic Steel | This as all of the proposed insanity from Albany and Washington needs to stop now! There is no climate crisis or any other nonfactual alarmist nonsense we hear daily, being seen or proven from studies or experience that gives any indication we need these ridiculous changes to our infrastructure. There is no way any of this can be implemented in that time frame and it is currently severely lacking for those who've already began the transition. This puts the cart way before the horse and will cause too much hardship on too many people. I wish to thank you and keep up the good fight we need to face these realities with solid common sense strategies not pie in the sky. | |
| Renee,Andreeff | Overall I feel the plan to not allow gas appliances or heating completely bizarre. It’s not a stretch by any means to say how expensive electricity is. We currently heat with propane which is much more expensive than natural gas and I could only wish gas was available at our house (h--- we only got internet a little over 2 years ago). However, we also own another house that heats with electricity (baseboard heaters). While that house is considered a hunting cabin, it’s 1/2 the size, the monthly bill in the winter is at least $100 more than heating our main house with propane. Making the switch to electricity will be detrimental to the residents of NY. Most can’t afford to live here now and this will only make it worse. My children have 2 years left in high school- due to these crazy ideas, we are pushing them to move out of state and we can’t wait to follow. | ||
| Daniel,Bergstrand | Local 3 | Please reconsider the aggressive timeline to ban natural gas . As an environmentalist I think it’s important to do everything possible to clean are environment , but also taking into account the jobs that will be lost and the cost to the local economy . After everything we’ve been through in the last 2 years we can’t take any more damage to are economy , especially in NY. | |
| Ralph,Evans | This proposal will cause NY residents great financial hardship. It shows a basic lack of knowledge of the effect this plan would have. We have an abundance of natural gas that is relatively cheap. If you restrict the use of natural gas to this degree and prohibit new construction to have gas and new gas service for existing buildings you will force everyone to use electric which is considerably more expensive. Also the cost of buying new appliances and furnaces is a hardship. This will also put a huge demand on the electric grid. Wind turbines and solar are not able to offset this demand. They are both expensive and don't produce anything at night and when the wind isn't blowing. Right now 40% of electric in this country is produced by coal burning plants. This whole concept is a great over reach of government power and authority. I will certainly vote against whoever supports this bill. | ||
| Ronald,vogl | none | Well, if the plan was to increase the exodus from our state this outline should accomplish it. This overreaching plan will harm business, the elderly and of course the taxpayer. Trying to follow the European's example is folly at best. Electrification is too lofty a goal and tramples free choice in the process. Scandinavian countries are getting there with an abundance of geo thermal energy, France by the use of Nuclear, which is glaringly missing from this document. Why is nuclear not on the table? i recently travelled the 86 and saw a huge pile of broken wind turbine blades, where are they going? if you want to go green, blades should be made of wood. I am familiar with another piece of green scoping, the HFC phase down initiative. The only refrigerants left for commercial use if this document holds up are CO2, ammonia and hydrocarbons. The folks who drafted that document must conclude that these are natural refrigerants, they are nothing of the sort, they are all processed in chemical plants. If the intent is to use those three then it should be legislated that they truly come from a natural source, pull the co2 from the air and not from an ammonia processing plant which is running one of the most inefficient chemical processes. Yes, ammonia is manufactured. This initiative will increase energy use from the cold chain increasing food costs to consumers. These initiatives are too aggressive, to fast paced and too unrealistic and certain to harm the economy of our state. In my opinion the only accomplishment this will have is to allow politicians take credit for saving the planet this proposed path forward will not do. Another point, we live in a rural county with often occurring power outages, how will our life out here improve with electricity being our sole energy source. | |
| Nate,Owens | Regarding strategies B1 Adopt Advanced Codes for Highly Efficient, All Electric, and Resilient New Construction and B9. Support Innovation There should be some flexibility built into building and zoning codes to allow for creative and innovative architectural solutions that may not meet the letter of those plans/codes but innovate in achieving (or surpassing) the desired outcomes of this scoping plan and the outcomes those codes will seek in terms of carbon reduction/sequestration and community resilience. Overly prescriptive codes can at times have a stifling effect in terms of innovative architecture. Ecological urbanism (please take a second to google this movement, if you can) in the urban planning and landscape architecture context and similar trends in the field of architecture won't be satisfied with today's targets of carbon neutral development and may be constrained by prescriptive language in those codes. Designers are and will be relentlessly pursuing structures that are carbon negative, retain/detain/use rainwater, generate electricity, integrate into the social context of their neighborhood, provide native species habitat, and integrate/support other ecological systems where development occurs. Additionally, new materials and methods will continue to emerge and mature that aren't considered by the existing building and zoning codes - for example, this may include materials and/or architectural designs that are homeostatic (building façades or elements that are dynamic and automatically respond in real time to weather or seasonal conditions). Building materials that are self-healing, self-building, or are themselves biological/living seem to be on the horizon. Even if codes don't provide exemptions to accommodate these innovative strategies, codes should be updated regularly to incorporate them. Thank you, Nate Owens, AICP --------, Schenectady, NY 12302 | ||
| Martha,Robertson | Retired Tompkins County Legislature | I strongly support the Draft Scoping Plan, and the near-miraculous amount of ground-breaking work that’s been done to create it. My sincere gratitude goes to ALL who have participated so far! I support SCENARIO 3 – Accelerated Transition Away from Combustion — which pushes hardest on electrification as a strategy and uses the lowest levels of bioenergy and combustion. I am extremely pleased to see the plan’s acknowledgment that achieving deep decarbonization is feasible by mid-century, with electrification overtaking combustion across the major sectors of our economy. PRICE ON CARBON: In order to make this necessary transition as fast, as efficiently, and as fairly as possible, I strongly support aligning energy price signals with the state’s policy goals. We need an economy-wide strategy that prices GHG emissions, as this directly affects lifecycle Return on Investment of deep decarbonization projects. Without a price on carbon, we’re swimming upstream. WITH a price on carbon – to continue the metaphor – we’re all rowing in the same direction! To be specific, legislation such as the federal Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA; H.R. 2307; https://energyinnovationact.org/) is the best model I’ve seen that would quickly and efficiently transform our entire economy, with equity built into the system for all low-to-middle income residents. I understand that implementing a carbon price for just one state will be difficult, but it’s essential that we try to figure this out. If anything like the EICDA could be established for NYS, I think it would be a game-changer. I do not support maintaining the same amount of waste incineration or “waste to energy” and continued combustion of fuels like hydrogen, biogas, or fossil gas. Again, thank you so much for the leadership, and blood, sweat, and tears, that have already gone into this process. | |
| sandye,renz | N?A | The Plan should categorically recommend an end to all garbage incineration in New York State. While the Plan appropriately stresses the value of diverting organic waste from landfills and incinerators, the Climate Action Council should lay out a clear timeline by which this must be accomplished. All organic waste should be kept out of landfills and composted by 2030. Biofuels are not a solution and there should be an end to all garbage incineration statewide. The Plan’s emphasis on recommending ways in which landfill usage could be reduced is admirable, but we think it could go further. There should be strong EPR legislation, such as Englebright's proposal and a better Bottle Bill. | |
| Zachary,Tatz | Transport Workers Union of America | ||
| Roger,Giuseppetti | The “green” incentive needs real analysis. I don’t believe that ANY human has anything to do with climate change. Eliminating natural gas has definite effect on quality of life. Electric demand CANNOT be satisfied utilizing solar or wind. I am almost 80 years old. Foul weather has been around for centuries. NO VALID PROOF OF HUMAN INVOLVEMENT IN ANY CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. I believe this to be a “money grab” by the left. Taxes rise and significant changes have occurred | ||
| Albert ,Mirashi | Helicopter traffic in New York City it's insane! In addition to horrible noise they create, carbon emissions, toxic fuel fumes they dump on general population, have robbed us of quality of life too! Please, we need to ban non-essential helicopter traffic over NYC, weather it's tourist or commuters to Hamptons, JFK etc! We as New Yorkers have suffered enough noise and environmental pollution. Because one percent of super rich can afford to travel by helicopter it doesn't mean it's fine or just to the rest of us who live and breathe, below. | ||
| Tyler,Adams | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Sean,Kinney | I feel as if jumping into a plan that would force us into using still developing technology so quickly is premature and would put a huge burden on our infrastructure and agricultural and business sectors, when we are already struggling in these areas. While I agree we should strive for these goals and I am 100% for emissions reductions, the timeframe seems too soon. I am also concerned that going 100% electric on vehicles so quickly will cause a great burden on the grid and electric vehicles don’t suit everyone’s travel routine and lifestyle. Please reconsider this proposal and give more time for the technology to be proven and time for the infrastructure to be put in place to support such a change. Respectfully, Sean Kinney | ||
| Dorothy,Pomponio | According to the United Nations, the United States is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases: Americans notoriously have the largest houses (thereby using the most heating and cooling), drive the largest vehicles (thereby emitting the most transportation gases) and do the most flying hither and thither. Also, because our country is so "rich" economically, the upper middle classes and upper classes have the most (unnecessary) luxuries--such as leather from cattle raised in the Amazon area of Brazil. To make things worse, the US bears the horrible distinction of being the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. All of my information, by the way, comes from various articles in the New York Times, whose research is in-depth and unquestionable. We, in New York State, need to be the leaders in the fight to stop the rapid heating of the planet, and the early demise of humanity from our beautiful home. It is absolutely crucial to me and many other New Yorkers that our agencies and political leaders take the lead in this fight. The CL-CPA is the one thing that gives me any hope that we may succeed. The late heat waves, wildfires, and sea level rise along our coasts are a constant reminder of how close we are to "the edge" of existence--not just for humanity but for all the other creatures that live here. It is unconscionable if "our great Democracy" leads humanity to the dying days of civilization. Let's make New York the proud leader of the careful backing away from the precipice. This battle is more important than almost every other battle we face. Please, support the CL-CPA and strengthen it and put it into action NOW. | ||
| Colette,DeCarlo | STOP IT! Our electrical system is not nearly what it needs to be to sustain these ridiculous ideas. Furthermore, it is not efficient and frankly does not work. | ||
| Peter,Van Alstyne | Please STOP unnecessary helicopters flying over Brooklyn and the entire city. It is one of the easiest ways to affect the environment. Stopping the flights reduces the carbon from fuel usage/production and emissions. The noise is just ridiculous morning noon and night and is very disruptive to the mental health of New Yorkers. It’s an easy fix! Thank you | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | none - just a very concerned citizen | Chapter 2 - Time is Now I absolutely agree that there is a problem and we need to stop CO2 emissions, as well as reducing other pollution. The problem is global, but we should start fixing it locally, as well as nationally and internationally. It is right to fix the issue irregardless of the economics - not everything is dollars and cents We are all in the same mess. Global warming affects everyone. Increased severity of storms affects everyone. Some locations may be impacted somewhat more than others, but we need to fix the root causes for the world's sake. We should prioritize spending on solving the problem, not treating the symptoms. Reducing CO2 emissions should come before putting up storm walls. Energy storage is a problem. Producing hydrogen is one way to store energy for longer term use. We should fund research into this and other long term solutions. | |
| Kim,Rasmussen | none | I urge NYCAC to consider & include the environmental & health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: There are close to 100K annual nonessential helicopter flights from 3 NYC heliports offering sightseeing trips & commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, & beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to the out of control helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in E Hampton & Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths/near the heliports. Unbelievably, the West 30th Street Heliport is in a State park (Manhattan's Hudson River Park), between the country's busiest bike & recreational path & the Hudson River. I have, personally, along with countless other Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers & kayakers sucked in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands & departs AND IDLES for extensive lengths of time spewing their poison into our lungs. This park contributes to climate change rather than reducing it, it's outrageous. | |
| Austin,Ebert | E's Logging | Wind and solar energy are intermittent unreliable sources of energy with serious technical limitations which only work when the wind is blowing and the sun Is out. The fact is electricity is not as reliable as natural gas. NYS needs to take into consideration the amount of energy needed to manufacture the windmills and solar panels which have a limited life span. It is impossible to build an entire grid system off wind and solar. The proposed current climate action plan is far too aggressive and unrealistic. There is no possible way that the current already overburdened electric grid can be updated in time to meet the proposed climate action deadlines being suggested. We already experience rolling blackouts in areas of this country by our overburdened system. Failure of the electric grid would be devastating to our state and country and as such backup sources of power such as gas, wood, and nuclear are absolutely critical. NYSEG has already proposed a 20% rate increase in starting in March 2023. The average American household as well as NY businesses are already reeling from record high inflation and gas prices which will take years to recover from and now NYS wants to push clean energy onto an already struggling and overburdened lower and middle class. Electricity is by far more expensive than natural gas and most people will not be able to afford to switch to all electric heat and appliances. Electric cars are also not as reliable as those with gas motors. It is laughable to propose no gas-automobile sales by 2035. Where is all of this electricity supposed to come from? It is impossible for the support systems needed for electric cars such as batteries, replacement parts, and mechanics who will be able to service these vehicles to be in place by 2035. I am opposed to NYS forcing New Yorkers to use only electric for powering their homes as well as any proposal to eliminate the sale of gas-powered vehicles. The public is fed up with NYS mandates. | |
| Joseph,Petrillo | Policy makers should, in my opinion, provide some kind of financial assistance to homeowners that have already invested in heat pump and solar energy systems when these systems start to degrade or become obsolete. | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | Chapter 12 - buildings Generally, I agree with the ideas presented in this section. I believe a small amount of CO2 emissions from supplemental heating systems is acceptable, especially if it is from wood, which is somewhat of a renewable resource, and is sometimes a by-product of forest clearing. Proper controls for particulates need to be in place. The section does not address how we make sure the products required are available to install. In addition to the CO2 issues with lighting, we need to make sure that exterior lighting does not create light pollution. A dark sky is important to many species. I agree with sponsoring research into solutions for specific problem areas. I also feel we should fund a lot more basic research than we do now. | ||
| John,Morrison | Proud American | These proposals to rid ourselves of natural gas are outrageous. The sane people of NY will rise up and defeat this by going to the voting poles and voting out the present administration. | |
| Elizabeth,Chow | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing and commuter flights is s is an injustice to all New Yorkers. | ||
| Lauren,Hope | This whole idea is absolutely insane. How on earth can anyone with any sort of education that is running our state think its a good idea to get rid of natural gas in our homes?? How do you think generators will run?? The power grid can not handle something like this. Please be aware that we STRONGLY DISCOURAGE this plan. If you need further information please contact me!! | ||
| Gary,Jankowiak | You are putting an unrealistic timeline on this. Our current system is overwhelmed as it is now. This was tried in the mid 70's and was found to be unsustainable. Until electricity can be made Reliable and cost efficient we cannot afford this. | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Pete,Smith | Wind and solar energy are intermittent unreliable sources of energy with serious technical limitations which only work when the wind is blowing, and the sun Is out. The fact is electricity is not as reliable as natural gas. NYS needs to take into consideration the amount of energy needed to manufacture the windmills and solar panels which have a limited life span. It is impossible to build an entire grid system off wind and solar. The proposed current climate action plan is far too aggressive and unrealistic. There is no possible way that the current already overburdened electric grid can be updated in time to meet the proposed climate action deadlines being suggested. We already experience rolling blackouts in areas of this country by our overburdened system. Failure of the electric grid would be devastating to our state and country and as such backup sources of power such as gas, wood, and nuclear are critical. NYSEG has already proposed a 20% rate increase in starting in March 2023. The average American household as well as NY businesses are already reeling from record high inflation and gas prices which will take years to recover from and now NYS wants to push clean energy onto an already struggling and overburdened lower and middle class. Electricity is by far more expensive than natural gas and most people will not be able to afford to switch to all electric heat and appliances. Electric cars are also not as reliable as those with gas motors. It is laughable to propose no gas-automobile sales by 2035. Where is all of this electricity supposed to come from? It is impossible for the support systems needed for electric cars such as batteries, replacement parts, and mechanics who will be able to service these vehicles to be in place by 2035. I am opposed to NYS forcing New Yorkers to use only electric for powering their homes as well as any proposal to eliminate the sale of gas-powered vehicles. The public is fed up with NYS mandates and restrictions. | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Geoff,Dunn | Chapter 15 - Agriculture and Forestry I have purchased seedlings from the Saratoga Tree Nursery. They need to provide more native plants. Their stock should also be increased (as the draft plan suggests) - they sell out of almost everything every year. This section mentions invasive species and deer as challenges for improving forest carbon capture. The section does not offer any solutions for the deer. The plan should offer more solutions for invasives. | ||
| Krish,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Carin,Krawczyk | As a lifelong resident of the beautiful state of New York, I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with the regulations for the following: No new gas service to existing buildings, beginning in 2024; No natural gas within newly constructed buildings, beginning in 2024; No new natural gas appliances for home heating, cooking, water heating, clothes drying beginning in 2030; No gasoline-automobile sales by 2035; Installing onsite solar or joining a community renewables program by 2040; and Installing geothermal heating by 2040. It is irresponsible for state to implement any of these things given the seasons/climate we have in New York. Depending solely on electric will be expensive, inefficient and most of all DANGEROUS. | ||
| Ron,Epstein | New York Construction Materials Association | Thank you for the opportunity to present the following comments on the draft Climate Action Council (CAC) draft Scoping Plan. Attached please two PDF files detailing comments/concerns identified on behalf of the members of the New York Construction Materials Association. If you did not receive or cannot open the two attachments, please contact me at -------------- or ----------------. A copy will also be e-mailed to your office. Regards! Ron Epstein | |
| Jean-Claude,Grattery | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan.: Currently, 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, etc. These fossil fuel-guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State Park, Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. They are one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport - and the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport do not even provide "transportation" but instead needless, polluting joyrides. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains & nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat. A recent Robert Wood Johnson Medical School study found that heart attack rates were 72% higher in areas with a lot of transportation noise. Helicopters are uniquely loud with the low vibration caused by rotating blades, and they fly at low altitudes over our homes, neighborhoods, parks, and waterways. These are densely populated areas! They are a veritable PLAGUE. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. | ||
| Thomas,Harvey | Ontario County Planning Department | Comments are contained in the uploaded letter, thank you. | |
| Jutta,DeForest | According to the EPA’s website on Global Greenhouse gas emissions the USA accounts for 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions. China & India account for 47%. What effect in real numbers will the CAC plan have on climate change? I cannot find the answer in the plan. Natural gas is the bridge between oil & coal power generation and renewables. It should be embraced not banned. The most common type of fuel used to heat a home in NYS is natural gas. It's used in about 60% of American homes nationwide. (energy.gov). The US has seen carbon Emissions from electricity decline by 27% between 2007 & 2018 resulting from switching from coal to natural gas for power generation. California energy prices have risen 6 times faster than the rest of the country since 2011 due to the reliance on renewables. This is due to the fact that there are hard physical limits on wind turbines and solar panels. The maximum efficiency of a wind turbine is 59.3%. The maximum achievable power density of a solar farm is up to 50 watts of electricity per square meter. The power density of a natural gas plant and nuclear plant ranges from 2000 to 6000 watts per square meter. Adopting zero emissions standards that prohibit gas/oil use in large fuel burning equipment will result industry relocating to states here the business climate is less restrictive. Industry will seek states with lower cost utilities and leave NY. Why would business come to NY? The cost of construction will be higher, regulation costs will be higher, compliance costs will be higher, utility costs will be higher and the power grid will not be as resilient. This plan is a false hope. If NYS does not support natural gas as a bridge to green energy or Nuclear power as an alternative, in the quest to avert climate change the CAC plan will create an energy and economic disaster for NYS. | ||
| Robert,Ciesielski | |||
| Corey,Bailey | This whole thing is a bad idea. You are putting the cart before the horse. While good intentioned, it's not smart to do at this time at the pace it's supposed to be implemented. It will end up costing households, who are already strapped for cash during high inflation and who can't afford new EV's or upgrades to current home heating/cooling systems, to choose between food and providing a roof over their heads for their families or spending tens of thousands of dollars to comply with this garbage. Don't do it. It's a bad idea. I oppose this whole idea and concept. It's not urgent and resources are being squandered on this when the technology isn't even there. There are other priorities that require attention. | ||
| Robert,Ciesielski | |||
| ROBERT,CIESIELSKI | |||
| Eric,Katzman | Each non-essential helicopter (close to 100,000 flights a year around NYC) produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. The adverse impacts of air pollutants falls especially hard on people living in NYC’s Environmental Justice neighborhoods, many which are directly under the paths of commuter and tourist helicopters. Noise pollution is also an environmental public health threat. Given NY is facing threats of even more climate change caused catastrophes, as we experienced during Hurricanes Sandy and Ida, every source of NY transportation pollution must be held to a new and urgent environmental standard. If NY is serious about decarbonization, the final NYCAC scoping plan must be focused on reliable, sustainable mass transport for all. It must include an immediate ban of carbon-intense nonessential helicopter transport. To continue allowing fossil-fuel based sightseeing and commuter flights is an injustice to all New Yorkers. | ||
| Martha,Robertson | Retired Tompkins County Legislature | Grid interconnections: Spread the Cost Across a Wider Base: I’d like to amplify comments that were submitted in 2020 to the Office of Renewable Energy Siting by NYSAC, NYCOM, and NY Association of Towns, about proposed ORES regulations. These associations jointly wrote about paying for grid interconnections for renewable energy projects: “The experience of too many communities has been that developers are forced to site projects as close as possible to the grid because interconnection costs are borne by each individual project. However, proximity to the grid does not mean a site is a better use of land or that a site will have the best solar or wind capacity. The cost of substation and circuit upgrades can become the major determinant of site selection, overriding other land use considerations and the welfare of the local community and often causing opposition and delay. “To truly accelerate renewable energy development, the State should establish a broader base to pay for interconnection costs and upgrades to the grid. This would allow developers greater flexibility in choosing sites. Because the State, as a whole, will benefit from faster progress, the cost of grid interconnections should be shared across a wider base rather than burdening each individual project with these costs. Developers could be asked to pay a fee to support such upgrades (e.g., per MW), but without tying the cost to the specific site as it is now. With this change, it could be expected that New York State will quickly become a location of choice for renewable energy developers, who will compete eagerly for the right to bring their projects here.“ To summarize, please develop a STATEWIDE BASE to pay for interconnection costs and grid upgrades needed to deploy renewable energy projects. Imposing costs on utility ratepayers is regressive and will continue to be a roadblock to rapid deployment. Developers should pay per MW but fees should not be tied to individual project locations. | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Ron,Dole | I would like to thank the people making all these stupid new rules for me. You have encouraged me to move the h--- out of this state, when you do put these stupid rules in effect. The power grid has all it can do now, to keep up with power demand. Then, when you make every building heated by electric, along with every stove to cook and every water heater, clothes dryer, ect to be electric. THEN put on top of that, making every vehicle electric, the power will be out, more than it's on. | ||
| ROBERT,CIESIELSKI | |||
| David,Koch | GreenMan Media | The ongoing, never-ending helicopter invasion is not only a disaster for the environment (its poisonous and inefficient fuel use), but also adds to the mental health load of the public already under stress from the obvious signs of ominous, irreversible climate change before our very eyes. Given the lavishly reimagined waterfronts in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Jersey City, Hoboken and elsewhere are no longer suitable for recreating due to the incessant noise and filth of the tourism and elite shuttles - transport? ha! - to Hamptons and airports. Not even from one's own apartment can one find refuge from the thunder. Nor in Central Park, as Shakespeare's words struggle to rise above shattering hovercrafts. What Lady Liberty or the hoards of tourists below think of the endless barrage around her crown is unclear. This is undoubtedly essential industry - keeping medical, police and government operators flying - but certainly doesn't provide anywhere near enough employment to justify the outsize, overwhelmingly negative impact helicopter-based industry has. And local government is almost powerless to do anything about it. The idea that anyone can operate these kinds of businesses with impunity in the face of near-universal opposition makes one question the power of the State itself…which, in this case, is about correct, as it’s the FAA who will ultimately determine our health and sanity. | |
| Paula,Anzalone | To Whom it May Concern (All of New York State and the United states) I want to preface This by writing I'm all for a clean environment but at what expense. We see what these ambitious ideas have gotten other countries, it’s very disturbing to have all their NG and oil come from a country that is an enemy of ours and our allies. Our electric grid will need to be improved immensely before adding an exuberant electric load. What will happen to our grid, is bring to a screeching halt. Prices of all things electric will need to come down in cost. Not to mention the radiation put out by solar fields that will cause more people getting cancer. We all see what has happened to California by over loading the electric grid. Please stop the madness and go about this slow and organized manner with realistic timeframes!! | ||
| Mike ,Hall | New York Aviation Management Association (NYAMA) | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Jeanette ,Marvin | NYS Agribusiness Association (NYSABA) | ||
| Ellen,Garvey | Retired | Non-essential tourist helicopters take off both from New York and New Jersey and incessantly fly over my house. They, along with small seaplanes transporting people from New York to expensive homes in the Hamptons, waste disproportionate amounts of fossil fuel. There is a push-on effect as well: when residents close their windows to keep out the racket, they turn on their air conditioners in summer, on days they might otherwise not want to do so. The desire of tour operators to make money while wasting fossil fuel is not a good reason to accommodate their wasteful, destructive ways. | |
| Julia,Bartholomew King | not applicable | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons: Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. These helicopters circle my neighborhood day and night, creating noise pollution, stress, pollution and harassment. The quality of life is impacted because of wealthy tourism and transportation. PLEASE STOP THE CHOP!! | |
| Moshe,Rozenblit | NY Quantum Theory Group | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | |
| Norrice,Raymaker | I urge NYCAC to include the environmental and health impacts caused by NY's non-essential helicopter industry in the Draft Scoping Plan for the following reasons:Currently, there are close to 100,000 annual nonessential helicopter flights from three NYC heliports (and other surrounding airports/heliports) that offer sightseeing trips and commuter flights to NYC airports, the Hamptons, and beyond. Other NY heliports contributing to this wild west helicopter airspace over the NY metro area are based in East Hampton and Westchester. These fossil fuel guzzling helicopters dump tons of toxic helicopter emissions on all those below their flight paths or near the heliports. Shockingly, we actually have a heliport located within a State park and situated between the country's busiest bike and recreational path and the Hudson River: the West 30th Street Heliport is located within Manhattan's Hudson River Park. Bikers, joggers, pedestrians, rollerbladers and kayakers are sucking in this noxious jet fuel every time a helicopter lands and departs, and additionally when they refuel. This park, ironically, is actually contributing to climate change rather than reducing it. Each helicopter produces 950 pounds of CO2 per hour, and burns over 40x the fuel of a passenger car per hour. That qualifies them as one of the most polluting, carbon-intense modes of transport. Completely counter to any environmental goals, are the 30,000 helicopter sightseeing flights departing from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport as they do not even provide "transportation" but rather needless, polluting joyrides in the NY Harbor and up and down the Hudson River which has unfortunately become a helicopter highway. Some helicopters STILL burn leaded fuel which was banned by the EPA 25 years ago because of its proven detrimental impact on children’s brains and nervous systems. According to the FAA, leaded aviation fuel makes up “the largest remaining aggregate source of lead emissions to air in the U.S." | ||
| Kyle Strober | Association for a Better Long Island | View Attachment | |
| Kyle,Strober | Association For A Better Long Island | View Attachment | |
| Stephen,Acquario | NYS Association of Counties (NYSAC) | View Attachment | |
| Emily A. Haggstrom | Consumer Energy Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Patricia,Cerro-Reehil | NY Water Environment Association | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | View Attachment | |
| William,Gehm | LR Gehm LLC | View Attachment | |
| Golandam,Hedjri | SUNY ESF | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa,Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association | View Attachment | |
| Brian,Fernandez | View Attachment | ||
| lynne bruning | View Attachment | ||
| Lynne Bruning | View Attachment | ||
| Josh Berman | Sierra Club | View Attachment | |
| From NY-GEO | New York Geothermal Energy Organization | View Attachment | |
| Jan Mulroy | View Attachment | ||
| Jan Mulroy | View Attachment | ||
| Jan Mulroy | View Attachment | ||
| Tom,Rhoads | NA | View Attachment | |
| Conlin, Andrew | Williams | View Attachment | |
| Jay,DiLorenzo | Preservation League of New York State | View Attachment | |
| Tom,Rhoads | View Attachment | ||
| Douglas,Presley | Dandelion Energy | View Attachment | |
| Sergei Krasikov | Beacon Conservation Advisory Committee | View Attachment | |
| CEJCo Info | Clean Energy Jobs Coalition NY | View Attachment | |
| Paul Moore | View Attachment | ||
| David ,Perkins | Lehigh Hanson, Inc., North American Headquarters | View Attachment | |
| Victoria Leung | Riverkeeper, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Parr, Tim | American Gas Association | View Attachment | |
| Lee,Alexander | Catskill Center for Conservation & Development | View Attachment | |
| Ananya | View Attachment | ||
| Arianna S | View Attachment | ||
| Ellery | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| Solomon | View Attachment | ||
| Loreta Coffeen | View Attachment | ||
| New York Forest Owners Association | View Attachment | ||
| Hugh O. Canham | View Attachment | ||
| Caryn Goellner | View Attachment | ||
| Judith Horn | View Attachment | ||
| Katherine Falkides | View Attachment | ||
| Alicia Schreier | View Attachment | ||
| Alan and Thomasine Wing | View Attachment | ||
| Alan Gregory | View Attachment | ||
| Kevin Dailey, CEO | Green Waste Energy | View Attachment | |
| Stephen Cheng | |||
| Patricia Dodson | View Attachment | ||
| Steven DeMallie | |||
| Brian Heine | |||
| Diane Grant | View Attachment | ||
| Kenneth Grant | View Attachment | ||
| Lisa _ | View Attachment | ||
| Caithness Long Island, LLC | View Attachment | ||
| Robert A. Becherer | View Attachment | ||
| Valerie Rapson | View Attachment | ||
| Josh N | View Attachment | ||
| Town Supervisor | Town of Deposit | View Attachment | |
| Robert Lamantia | View Attachment | ||
| Sally Kirsch | View Attachment | ||
| Philip G. Rose | |||
| Judy Fitzgerald | Interfaith Climate Justice | View Attachment | |
| Sister Eileen O'Connor | View Attachment | ||
| George Latimer | |||
| Randall Bergman | View Attachment | ||
| Gary Vanvalkenburg | View Attachment | ||
| Laura Burkhardt | |||
| Christopher Church | View Attachment | ||
| John Egleston | View Attachment | ||
| Lizbeth Michiels | View Attachment | ||
| Kathy Ferro | View Attachment | ||
| Kathy Ferro | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| View Attachment | |||
| Pat Gallozza | View Attachment | ||
| Rachel Cole | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| Matt Birbnach | View Attachment | ||
| Bonnie Courture | View Attachment | ||
| Jody Eckert | View Attachment | ||
| Kathy Ferro | View Attachment | ||
| Mike George | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Glen | View Attachment | ||
| New York State Energy Coalition | View Attachment | ||
| Tom Cunningham | Equinor Renewables US | View Attachment | |
| _ Layton | View Attachment | ||
| Bradley | View Attachment | ||
| Brian Albanese | View Attachment | ||
| Daryl McClenon | View Attachment | ||
| David Thompson | View Attachment | ||
| Deborah Bigelow | View Attachment | ||
| John Holmes | View Attachment | ||
| Leon Faulkner III | View Attachment | ||
| Leonard Rutherford | View Attachment | ||
| Melissa Layton | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| Robert _ | View Attachment | ||
| Strat Van Valkenburg | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Hancock | View Attachment | ||
| Wayne Mc_ | View Attachment | ||
| Donald A. Nadratowski | View Attachment | ||
| Bonnie Courture | View Attachment | ||
| Diane Reilly | View Attachment | ||
| George Galeazza | View Attachment | ||
| Michelle Egelston | View Attachment | ||
| Steve Helmin | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Windsor | View Attachment | ||
| Joanna D. Underwood | View Attachment | ||
| Jess Mullen | Communities for Local Power | View Attachment | |
| David Christopher | New York Association for Pupil Transportation | View Attachment | |
| Michael Mahar | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Harpersfield | View Attachment | ||
| Barry Pendergrass | View Attachment | ||
| George Sayler | View Attachment | ||
| New York Propoane Gas Association | View Attachment | ||
| NVPGA | View Attachment | ||
| Angela Wellhindha | |||
| Ishan Gammampila | View Attachment | ||
| Sandeep | View Attachment | ||
| New York Forest Owners Association | View Attachment | ||
| Jason Schwartz | View Attachment | ||
| Sarah LoPuzzo | Village of Pelham | View Attachment | |
| Town of Ontario | View Attachment | ||
| Marian Hertler | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Conklin | View Attachment | ||
| Doug Rettig | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas & Frances Banas | View Attachment | ||
| William and Barbara Dadey | View Attachment | ||
| Donald Roblee | View Attachment | ||
| Maria Fedele | View Attachment | ||
| MaryAnne Ritchie | View Attachment | ||
| Norman McBride | View Attachment | ||
| Helga Closson | View Attachment | ||
| Melanie Zollinger | View Attachment | ||
| M. Hannigan | View Attachment | ||
| Village of Ardsley | View Attachment | ||
| Viola George | |||
| Eleanor Aikens | View Attachment | ||
| Michelle Capenter & Thomas D. O'Connor | Mohawk Fine Papers Inc | View Attachment | |
| Oswego School District | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| Andy Calimano | View Attachment | ||
| Robert McLaughlin | View Attachment | ||
| William Massaro | View Attachment | ||
| Mr. & Mrs. Harry Pandazis | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | |||
| NYS Association for Solid Waste Management | View Attachment | ||
| Adriana Vega | View Attachment | ||
| Joanne Petrozzi-Jones | View Attachment | ||
| The Clean Air Coalition of WNY | View Attachment | ||
| City of Beacon | View Attachment | ||
| Hugh Baillargeon | View Attachment | ||
| Carol Mitchell | View Attachment | ||
| Long Island Farm Bureau | View Attachment | ||
| Will Barclay | NYS Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay | View Attachment | |
| Brianna Avery | View Attachment | ||
| Daniel Zook | View Attachment | ||
| Moses Yoder | View Attachment | ||
| Pete Schwartz | View Attachment | ||
| Amber & Randy Lindsey | View Attachment | ||
| Joseph Faller | View Attachment | ||
| Christine Snell | View Attachment | ||
| Delaware Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board | View Attachment | ||
| Ellen Grogan | Pound Ridge Conservation Board | View Attachment | |
| James C. Hoffman | View Attachment | ||
| Joe Hostetler representing 23 families | View Attachment | ||
| John Mahoney | View Attachment | ||
| Katherine MacKay - Parishville | View Attachment | ||
| Lark Rutecki | View Attachment | ||
| Lewis Fertig | View Attachment | ||
| Luke Martin | View Attachment | ||
| Michael Giaimo | |||
| Phil Erner | View Attachment | ||
| Roger Gray | View Attachment | ||
| Tyler Avery | View Attachment | ||
| Assemblyman Jeff Gallahan | View Attachment | ||
| Bob Cohen | Citizen Action of New York | View Attachment | |
| Jeff Snell | View Attachment | ||
| View Attachment | |||
| Matthew Aracich | Building and Construction Trades Council | View Attachment | |
| Robert and Sherry Veitch | View Attachment | ||
| Sarah J Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Baker, Alice (Law) | New York City | ||
| Lucas, Mitchell W | New York Independent System Operator | View Attachment | |
| Goldstein, Eric | Natural Resources Defense Council | View Attachment | |
| Town of Meredith | View Attachment | ||
| Town of Lebanon | View Attachment | ||
| Assistant townofnewpaltz.org | Town of New Paltz | View Attachment | |
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Augusta,Mead | Liberty Renewables, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Fitch, Neal | NRG Energy, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Richard Kassel | Neste | View Attachment | |
| Claire Alford | Highland Electric Fleets | View Attachment | |
| Dirk van Ouwerkerk | Soltage | View Attachment | |
| Peter Bauer | Protect the Adirondacks | View Attachment | |
| Ruby Mekker | View Attachment | ||
| Mina,Hoblitz | The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce | View Attachment | |
| Ryan,Stanton | Long Island Federation of Labor | View Attachment | |
| Janet Glocker | Janet Glocker | View Attachment | |
| Kara,Gurl | Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA | View Attachment | |
| Walter-Terrinoni, Helen | Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute | View Attachment | |
| Brian,Sapp | View Attachment | ||
| Will,Barclay | NYS Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay | View Attachment | |
| Andrew,Rigie | NYC Hospitality Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Mayor Armacost | Village of Hastings-on-Hudson | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Village of Hastings-on-Hudson | View Attachment | |
| Aidan Snyder | Orenda, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Mariah Okrongly | View Attachment | ||
| Jed ,Dukett | View Attachment | ||
| Alberto ,Bianchetti | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Bianchetti, Alberto | View Attachment | ||
| Ira,Dassa | Airlines for America (A4A) | View Attachment | |
| Aaron,Choo | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Patrick,Serfass | American Biogas Council | View Attachment | |
| John,Saeli | Saeli Implement | View Attachment | |
| Anne Reynolds | Alliance for Clean Energy New York | View Attachment | |
| Deb,Peck-Kelleher | Alliance for Clean Energy New York | View Attachment | |
| Campbell,Wallace | ACEC New York | View Attachment | |
| Steve,Griffin | Finger Lakes Economic Development Center | View Attachment | |
| Cathy Pedler | Adirondack Mountain Club | View Attachment | |
| Bill Rabbia | New York State Association for Solid Waste Management | View Attachment | |
| Betta Broad | Association for Energy Affordability | View Attachment | |
| Leah,Meredith | Advanced Energy Economy | View Attachment | |
| Peter Dotson-Westphalen (CPower) | Advanced Energy Management Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Cornelia,Kelley | AES | View Attachment | |
| Seidman, Laura | American Forest and Paper Association | ||
| Alber,Hauck | View Attachment | ||
| James,McKitrick | American Forest Foundation | View Attachment | |
| Kent Manuel | Delaware County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board | View Attachment | |
| Kent,Manuel | Delaware County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board | View Attachment | |
| Twisha Balasubramanian | American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Fisk | Retired; member of The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Alliance for a Green Economy | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | View Attachment | ||
| Judy,Harris | View Attachment | ||
| Gerri,Wiley | View Attachment | ||
| Walter-Terrinoni, Helen | Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute | View Attachment | |
| Heller,Miles T. | Air Products | View Attachment | |
| Miles,Heller | Air Products | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Alan Schenck | View Attachment | |
| Brian ,Gemmell | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Albert Martin | View Attachment | ||
| Nancy,Young | Alder Fuels | View Attachment | |
| Matthew Desmarais | Energy Catalyst LLC | View Attachment | |
| George,Povall | All Our Energy | View Attachment | |
| Town of Roxbury | View Attachment | ||
| Amanda Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Daniel Fusco | Bishop Sam Hershberger, Deerfield NY Amish Community | View Attachment | |
| Brian Ross | AMPLY Power | View Attachment | |
| Amy Lauterbach Pokorny | View Attachment | ||
| Andrea Rebeck | View Attachment | ||
| Andrew & Ann Forrestal | View Attachment | ||
| Andrew,McPherson | View Attachment | ||
| Alethea Dopart | Anew Climate, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Angela Ortero | View Attachment | ||
| Anita Cowles | View Attachment | ||
| Anita Nigrel | View Attachment | ||
| Ann Burnham | View Attachment | ||
| Ann Haney | View Attachment | ||
| Roger Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | ||
| Business Council of Westchester | View Attachment | ||
| Renewable Energy Coalition | View Attachment | ||
| April Gow | View Attachment | ||
| John,West | World Trade Center Orlando and Particulate Matter Solutions LLC | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | ||
| Silvia Garcia | |||
| Erin,McGrath | Audubon New York | View Attachment | |
| Keith,Sawyer | Avfuel | View Attachment | |
| Bryan,Swift | View Attachment | ||
| Barbara,Thompson | |||
| [email protected] | Barbara Van Kerkhove | View Attachment | |
| David Bauer | View Attachment | ||
| Sandra,Goldmark | Barnard College | View Attachment | |
| Midge Iorio | Bedford 2030 | View Attachment | |
| Ottinger, Prof. Richard L. | View Attachment | ||
| Carol McLeod | View Attachment | ||
| Karen Sabath | Bedford 2030 | View Attachment | |
| Alexis Goldsmith | Beyond Plastics | View Attachment | |
| Billii Roberti | View Attachment | ||
| Anntonette,Alberti | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Anntonette ,Alberti | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Darryle,Ulama | Bloom Energy | View Attachment | |
| Jen Dougherty | Buffalo Niagara Builders Association | View Attachment | |
| Josh Veronica | Buffalo Niagara Partnership. | View Attachment | |
| dot.sm.transportation.publiccomment | View Attachment | ||
| Robert,Confer | View Attachment | ||
| Daniel Avery | Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater New York | View Attachment | |
| CL Battaglia | BPCA NYS Inc | ||
| Brenda Stone | View Attachment | ||
| Brent,Kelley | View Attachment | ||
| Brian ,Sano | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Brian,Speer | Speer-it Enterprise | View Attachment | |
| Isuru Seneviratne | Nuclear New York; Clean Energy Jobs Coalition NY; Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal | ||
| Amanda Clevinger | Bright Power | View Attachment | |
| Chris,LaRoe | Brookfield Renewable | View Attachment | |
| Tristan Brown | View Attachment | ||
| Kerrie,Gallo | Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper | View Attachment | |
| Michael T. Schmand | Buffalo Place, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Ken ,Kujawa | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Gatti, Sarah | Food Policy Council of Buffalo and Erie County | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | IBM Research | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | Bard College Center for Environmental Policy | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Joanne Boger | View Attachment | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| Leddy, Maureen A (DEC) | Dianne Buonincontri-Aliquo | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Bryan,Grimaldi | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Kevin,Dailey | Green Waste Energy, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Charlotte,Allen | View Attachment | ||
| Catherine Skopic | View Attachment | ||
| Emilie ,Hauser | City of Kingston Conservation Advisory Commission | View Attachment | |
| Jessica Azulay | Alliance for a Green Economy; Building Decarbonization Coalition; United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinkler Fitters New York; New York League of Conservation Voters; Alliance for a Greater New York; WE ACT for Environmental Justice | ||
| Joan Hoffman | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas Brundage | NY State Assemblyman Kevin Byrne | View Attachment | |
| Steve,Beyers | Private Citizen | View Attachment | |
| Michael,Burridge | The American Institute of Architects New York State | View Attachment | |
| Alexander,Shapanka | Real Estate Board of New York | View Attachment | |
| Alexander Shapanka | Real Estate Board of New York | View Attachment | |
| Neal, Shelby | Darling Ingredients | View Attachment | |
| Deb,Peck Kelleher | Alliance for Clean Energy NY | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Valdi Weiderpass | View Attachment | |
| Richard,Cummings | New York Propane Gas Association & National Propane Gas Association | View Attachment | |
| Ellen,Pope | Otsego 2000, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Hall, Amy S (APA) | Adirondack Park Agency | View Attachment | |
| Sam,Jasinski | Borrego | View Attachment | |
| Raymond Casimano | View Attachment | ||
| Nancy Casper | View Attachment | ||
| Joshua,Cohen | Partners for Climate Action Hudson Valley | View Attachment | |
| Chuck Manning | Green Sancturary Committee of Albany UU | View Attachment | |
| Osgood, Sarah (NYSERDA) | New Yorkers for Affordable Energy Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Joseph Londa | View Attachment | ||
| Joseph Londa | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Northeast Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association | View Attachment | |
| James,Johnson | Steuben County IDA | View Attachment | |
| Melanie,Patapis | View Attachment | ||
| Melanie,Patapis | View Attachment | ||
| Mark Schaeffer | View Attachment | ||
| Fred Zalcman | New York Offshore Wind Alliance | ||
| Bennet Ratcliff | Councilmember Bennet Ratcliff | View Attachment | |
| Sandeep,Dudhwewala | View Attachment | ||
| Jackie,Weisberg | 350Brooklyn; NY Renews | View Attachment | |
| Carlo,Casa | New York Building Congress | View Attachment | |
| Barbara,Spink | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | |||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Julie Marie Suarez | Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | CALSTART | View Attachment | |
| dot.sm.transportation.publiccomment | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas, Jason | Carrier | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Utility Consultation Group | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Utility Consultation Group | View Attachment | |
| Cathy McConnell | View Attachment | ||
| Alexander,Heil | CBC | View Attachment | |
| Brian,Smith | Citizens Campaign for the Environment | View Attachment | |
| Jenna DeRario | Finger Lakes Payment for Ecosystems Work Team | View Attachment | |
| Peter Savio | Citizens Climate Lobby NY | ||
| Sandy,Misiewicz | Capital District Transportation Committee | View Attachment | |
| Himani,Gupta | Trinity Consultants | View Attachment | |
| Mark,Sclafani | Central Hudson Gas & Electric | View Attachment | |
| Michael Trunzo | Clean Fuels Alliance America | View Attachment | |
| Michael Trunzo | Clean Fuels Alliance America | View Attachment | |
| Floyd,Vergara | Clean Fuels Alliance America (broken link) | View Attachment | |
| Scott Hedderich | Chevron Renewable Energy Group | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Will Higgins | Nikola Corporation | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels New York Coaltion | View Attachment | |
| Patrick McClellan | Clean Fuels NY Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Carlos ,Gavilondo | View Attachment | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | View Attachment | |
| Sam | View Attachment | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Hotshot Hotwires | View Attachment | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Gerri,Wiley | View Attachment | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | View Attachment | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Bethlehem Central Middle School | ||
| Arnav,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Hotshot Hotwires | View Attachment | |
| Arnav,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Philip,Sisser | Philip Sisser and Mikala Bilahu, Cornell University | View Attachment | |
| Emily Kelly | ChargePoint | View Attachment | |
| William Sherman | Combined Heat and Power Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Christopher Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Tom Schnurr | Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities | View Attachment | |
| Cindy Wagner | View Attachment | ||
| Bob Cohen | Citizen Action of New York | View Attachment | |
| Deana Lafond | City of Oswego Mayor | View Attachment | |
| C.J.,Randall | Town of Lansing | View Attachment | |
| Todd Tranum (MAST) | Manufacturers Association of the Southern Tier | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley & Catskills | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills chapter | View Attachment | |
| Jade,Atherton | SUNY Morrisville | View Attachment | |
| Karen Flanders | Casella Waste Systems, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Karen Flanders | Casella Waste Systems, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Diane Cohen | Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Diane,Cohen | Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| amandak.post | Amanda Post | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth Graeper Thomas | Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization | View Attachment | |
| George,Brinkwart | View Attachment | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Reid | The Reid Companies | View Attachment | |
| Patricia,Linton | View Attachment | ||
| Mike Huth | Potsdam Specialty Paper Inc | View Attachment | |
| Gary A. Abraham | View Attachment | ||
| Maya Temperley | Rochester Institute of Technology | View Attachment | |
| Maya Temperley | Golisano Institute for Sustainability | View Attachment | |
| Luann ,Meyer | SWANA - NY Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Kris Martin | View Attachment | ||
| Diane,Stefani | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Ronald Epstein | New York Construction Materials Association | View Attachment | |
| Ron,Epstein | New York Construction Materials Association | ||
| Brian Schmitt | Country Side Sand & Gravel, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| John,Moynihan | Northeast Clean Heat & Power Initiative (NECHPI) | View Attachment | |
| Jonathan Hackett | Global Partners LP | View Attachment | |
| Ron,Epstein | New York Construction Materials Association | View Attachment | |
| Ronald Epstein | New York Construction Materials Association | View Attachment | |
| Curt Wells | The Aluminum Association | View Attachment | |
| Curt,Wells | The Aluminum Association | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley & Catskills | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills | View Attachment | |
| Hernandez, Annel | Councilmember Sandy Nurse | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Julie Lewis | Mike German | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa,Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association | View Attachment | |
| Meme,Hanley | Land Trust Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Frank Gerace | Hubbell Galvanizing | View Attachment | |
| Rob,Richardson | Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council | View Attachment | |
| Lynne A. ,Grifo | View Attachment | ||
| Lynne A. ,Grifo | View Attachment | ||
| Robert Rossi | New York Sustainable Business Council | ||
| Christopher,Torell | Hanson Aggregates | View Attachment | |
| Mark,Petzold | View Attachment | ||
| Chris W. Burger | Network for a Sustainable Tomorrow | View Attachment | |
| Rhiannon,Sisson | Sisson's Chain Saws & Stoves, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Kevin,Dugan | NYS Restaurant Association | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Hudson Valley & Catskills Climate Reality Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| Woodstock Bring Your Own | Town of Woodstock Environmental Commission | View Attachment | |
| Audrey,Friedrichsen | Clean Energy Advocates (Scenic Hudson, American Farmland Trust, New York League of Conservation Voters, New Yorkers for Clean Power, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, and Sustainable Hudson Valley) | View Attachment | |
| Brett Barry | Clean Energy | View Attachment | |
| Richard Kassel | ClearFlame Engine Technologies; Remora; SixWheel | View Attachment | |
| Osgood, Sarah (NYSERDA) | Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Zachary,Schwartzman | View Attachment | ||
| Gerald,Peer | View Attachment | ||
| Profous, George (DEC) | View Attachment | ||
| Profous, George (DEC) | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Frank,Isele | View Attachment | ||
| Jeanie,Gleisner | Central New York Regional Planning & Development Board | View Attachment | |
| Will Flower | Winters Bros. and Brookhaven Rail | ||
| Lisa Casey | Genesee County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Sierra Club Susquehanna Group | ||
| Kevin Schwab | CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity | View Attachment | |
| Kent,Sopris | New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS) | View Attachment | |
| Steffek, Heather | American Concrete Pavement Association | View Attachment | |
| Rebecca,Novick | View Attachment | ||
| Joseph,Benedict | WNY Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors | View Attachment | |
| Connie,Gutowski | D.V. Brown & Associates, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| omar,abdallah | D.V. Brown & Associates, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Steve Reid | |||
| Bill Fekete | |||
| Kevin,Spillane | Onondaga County Research Recovery Agency | View Attachment | |
| Sioufas, Nicholas | City of New Rochelle | View Attachment | |
| Dana Bakowski | Sciuga Custom Builders | View Attachment | |
| Joseph Schaub | View Attachment | ||
| Emily,Rinck | View Attachment | ||
| Lawrence,D'Arco | View Attachment | ||
| Viki,Ingersoll | Citizen | View Attachment | |
| Marissa Pappas | Kevin Allan | View Attachment | |
| Warren Hart | Greene County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| Robin Vercruse | Low Carbon Fuels Coalition | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Town of Windham | View Attachment | |
| Rose,Oropallo | resident | View Attachment | |
| Craig Fligstein | United Way of Long Island | View Attachment | |
| lynn,oles | View Attachment | ||
| Erin ,Mysogland | View Attachment | ||
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Joy Daggett, PhD | View Attachment | |
| Adam Flint | Energy Democracy Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| David,Mirabito | Financial Planner | ||
| Joe,Muncey | Joe Muncey | View Attachment | |
| John Doyle | View Attachment | ||
| Noah,Kazis | View Attachment | ||
| Michael,Powers | View Attachment | ||
| Wayne,Reynolds | View Attachment | ||
| CURES | Civics United for Railroad Environmental Solutions | View Attachment | |
| Warren Hart | Greene County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| Samana,Lake | View Attachment | ||
| Evelina,Torres | |||
| Brendan ,Lougheed | View Attachment | ||
| Eric Hauser | View Attachment | ||
| Collin Miller | View Attachment | ||
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Catskill Mountainkeeper | View Attachment | |
| Colin Beier | View Attachment | ||
| Lee,Walker | Walker Enterprise | View Attachment | |
| Catherine L Landis | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Adirondack Wild | View Attachment | |
| Alex,Zucker | View Attachment | ||
| Barbara,Luka | Binghamton University | View Attachment | |
| paul van Linden Tol | Paul van Linden Tol | View Attachment | |
| Jess Mullen | View Attachment | ||
| Christine,Steerman | CCL, En-ROADS volunteer | View Attachment | |
| Jules,Hollander | Jules Hollander | View Attachment | |
| Nicole,Drespel | View Attachment | ||
| Kathy Dubel | Ad Hoc Climate Change Task Force | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth,Henderson | Peacework CSA | View Attachment | |
| Angela Navarro | Arcardia | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Andy,Bicking | Scenic Hudson | View Attachment | |
| Barbara,Luka | View Attachment | ||
| ANITA,MENSAH | Baruch College | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy; Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy | View Attachment | |
| Betty Ketcham | |||
| Tim Burpoe | New York Society of American Foresters | View Attachment | |
| Angela,Ricotta | View Attachment | ||
| Suzie,Ross | View Attachment | ||
| Dengos, Walter E. | |||
| Kierstin,Turnock | Eastman Chemical Co. | View Attachment | |
| Fs Johnson | |||
| Andrew Willner | The Center for Post Carbon Logistics | View Attachment | |
| Alexandra,Dill | SUNY ESF | View Attachment | |
| David Stout | |||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Mike Ewall | Energy Justice Network | View Attachment | |
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | View Attachment | ||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | View Attachment | ||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | View Attachment | ||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | View Attachment | ||
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | Duplicate of submission from CJ, Kelley, line 834. | View Attachment | |
| Alexandra,Rogalinski | View Attachment | ||
| Fernando,de Aragon | ITCTC | View Attachment | |
| Dan Bielat | View Attachment | ||
| David,Malecki | View Attachment | ||
| Mo-Yain Tham | View Attachment | ||
| Cheyenne,Stewart | View Attachment | ||
| Wyatt,Goodwin | Baruch College MPA | View Attachment | |
| Bill Burdick | View Attachment | ||
| Kerri,Kirschbaum | Con Edison & Orange and Rockland | View Attachment | |
| Kirschbaum, Kerri Ann - Regulatory | Con Edison and Orange & Rockland | View Attachment | |
| Poon, Mei | ConEdison; Natural Resources Defense Council | View Attachment | |
| Kerri,Kirschbaum | Con Edison & NRDC | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Joseph,Wilson | Coalition for Outreach, Policy and Education | View Attachment | |
| Judy,Harris | View Attachment | ||
| Judy,Harris | View Attachment | ||
| Judy,Harris | View Attachment | ||
| Sarah Carson | Cornell University Campus Sustainability Office | View Attachment | |
| erda.sm.eehpanel | Bill Burdick | View Attachment | |
| Robert,Ciesielski | View Attachment | ||
| Kent Manuel | Delaware County Planning Board | View Attachment | |
| Laurie Wheelock | Public Utility Law Project of New York | View Attachment | |
| County Attorney | Greene County | View Attachment | |
| Craig Swiech | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas O'Connor | Capital Region Chamber | View Attachment | |
| Thomas,O'Connor | Capital Region Chamber | View Attachment | |
| Emily Fano | View Attachment | ||
| MH Specter | Micro-Utilities, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Brian,Wilson | Syracuse DSA/Nuclear NY | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | View Attachment | ||
| Cynthia Kuntz | View Attachment | ||
| Hacker, Jon | Daikin | View Attachment | |
| William,Gehm | LR Gehm LLC | View Attachment | |
| Dan,Carnahan | CT 184 Consulting | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Krug | Dan Gernatt Gravel Products, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Dan Steward | View Attachment | ||
| David and Maureen Bluett | View Attachment | ||
| David Borton | View Attachment | ||
| David,Pulhamus | View Attachment | ||
| Dawn,Timm | Niagara County | View Attachment | |
| DB | View Attachment | ||
| Belinda Cape | Downtown Brooklyn Partnership | View Attachment | |
| Regina,Myer | Downtown Brooklyn Partnership | View Attachment | |
| DeAnna Backus | View Attachment | ||
| Randy Rucinski | Donna DeCarolis | View Attachment | |
| Randy Rucinski | Donna DeCarolis | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Delia Kulukundis | View Attachment | ||
| Joe Uglietto | Diversified Energy Specialists | View Attachment | |
| Dietmar Detering | View Attachment | ||
| John & Julie Burgess | View Attachment | ||
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | View Attachment | ||
| Michelle,Pelan | View Attachment | ||
| Shane ,Butler | Chenango County Department of Planning and Development | View Attachment | |
| Osgood, Sarah (NYSERDA) | Wyoming County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Don Burdick | View Attachment | ||
| Chahbazpour, Donald | View Attachment | ||
| Don,Chahbazpour | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Douglas Giebel | View Attachment | ||
| Susan McIntyre | Delaware County Department of Public Works | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Gernatt Asphalt Products | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Anshul,Gupta | View Attachment | ||
| Karen London | Town of Bethel Sustainable Bethel Committee | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Kerri,Richardson | View Attachment | ||
| Pamela Atwater | Save Ontario Shores, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Pamela Atwater | Save Ontario Shores, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Pamela Atwater | Save Ontario Shores, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Pamela Atwater | Save Ontario Shores, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Philip Palmesano | Assemblymember Phil Palmesano | View Attachment | |
| Gretchen,Worth | View Attachment | ||
| Chris,Voell | Nature Energy | View Attachment | |
| Christopher Michael Voell (CMVO) | Nature Energy | View Attachment | |
| Leon,Porter | Citizens Climate Lobby--NY Southern Finger Lakes | View Attachment | |
| Mike,Durkin | Cobey | View Attachment | |
| Michael,Mager | Multiple Intervenors | View Attachment | |
| Megan,Pliscofsky | NYS Building & Construction Trades Council | View Attachment | |
| Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor | View Attachment | ||
| Robert Zullo III | |||
| Anthony Ng | View Attachment | ||
| Tony,Daniels | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Walsh, James | Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association | View Attachment | |
| Thomas McPheeters | South End Community Collaborative | View Attachment | |
| Roger Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project - NYC | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climate Reality Project NYC | View Attachment | |
| Matt,Haynie | POET, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Kiesler | Climatre Reality Project NYC | View Attachment | |
| Mid-Hudson Sustainability Coalition Energy Working Group | Mid-Hudson Sustainability Coalition Energy Working Group | View Attachment | |
| Manna Jo Greene | Mid-Hudson Sustainability Coalition Energy Working Group | View Attachment | |
| Ed Scarborough | Distributed Sun, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Pillus, Colleen | Dutchess County | View Attachment | |
| Pillus, Colleen | Dutchess County | View Attachment | |
| Mark Sager | View Attachment | ||
| Brock,Gibian | Ecogy Energy | View Attachment | |
| Ecogy Policy | Ecogy Energy | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | View Attachment | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth,Stein | Environmental Defense Fund | View Attachment | |
| Greene County | View Attachment | ||
| Edward,Maier | View Attachment | ||
| Sandra,Meier | Environmental Energy Alliance of New York | View Attachment | |
| Sandra,Meier | Environmental Energy Alliance of New York | View Attachment | |
| Burke, Cheyenne | New York State Bar Association Environmental and Energy Law Section | View Attachment | |
| Elaine Ucci | View Attachment | ||
| Mark Schaeffer | View Attachment | ||
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | Bard College Center for Environmental Policy | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | View Attachment | |
| Thomas,Hirasuna | View Attachment | ||
| Anshul Gupta | View Attachment | ||
| E. Kevin,Conley | Capital Region Interfaith Creation Care Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Isabel Lane | Electrify America | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth Thorndike | View Attachment | ||
| Emily Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Johnbeves | |||
| [email protected] | James E. Bauer | View Attachment | |
| Matthew,Tomich | Energy Vision | View Attachment | |
| Robert,Ciesielski | View Attachment | ||
| Eric Dobler | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Kris,DeLair | Empire State Energy Association, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| John Bartow | Empire State Forest Products Association | View Attachment | |
| Evelyn Lutness | View Attachment | ||
| Janet Glocker | Janet Glocker | View Attachment | |
| Barlette, Richard P:(Constellation) | Constellation | View Attachment | |
| Filiatrault, Nathan | Guardian Glass Geneva Flat Glass Manufacturing Facility | View Attachment | |
| Kevin Dill | New York State Pipe Trades Labor-Management Partnership | View Attachment | |
| Danielle,Manley | Urban Green Council | View Attachment | |
| Brendan,Manning | AGC NYS, LLC | ||
| Jill,Henck | Adirondack North Country Association | View Attachment | |
| Shelly Johnson-Bennett | Delaware County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Shelly,Johnson-Bennett | Delaware County | View Attachment | |
| Carbon Free New York | View Attachment | ||
| Mariah Dignan | Climate Jobs NY | View Attachment | |
| Ken,Pokalsky | The Business Council of NYS, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County | View Attachment | |
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County | View Attachment | |
| Guillermo,Metz | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County | View Attachment | |
| Teraine Okpoko | View Attachment | ||
| Maggie Clarke | Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| William,Thomas | Open New York | View Attachment | |
| Dennis,Poust | New York State Catholic Conference | View Attachment | |
| Christopher,Inkiow | Hamilton College | View Attachment | |
| Wendy Fleischer | View Attachment | ||
| Frances Antonucci | View Attachment | ||
| Francis Menton | View Attachment | ||
| Frederick Theodore | View Attachment | ||
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa,Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association | View Attachment | |
| Miranda, Joey Lee | FuelCell Energy, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Gary Acres | View Attachment | ||
| Gary Murdock | View Attachment | ||
| Gary R. Schoonmaker | View Attachment | ||
| Gary Toth | |||
| Gary,Nelson | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Anshul Gupta | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| Smith, Brian (GE Gas Power) | GE Gas Power | View Attachment | |
| Ellen Weininger | Grassroots Environmental Education | View Attachment | |
| Leddy, Maureen A (DEC) | Joseph Geerkin | View Attachment | |
| Mark,Dunlea | Green Education and Legal Fund | View Attachment | |
| Leddy, Maureen A (DEC) | Genesee County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduits 1& 2 Year 1960 | ||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduits 1& 2 Year 1960 | View Attachment | |
| No Glen Mega Solar No Mega Solar | GlenFARMLand | View Attachment | |
| norm ungermann | View Attachment | ||
| norm ungermann | View Attachment | ||
| Ryan Horstmyer | Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association | View Attachment | |
| Peter Gollon | View Attachment | ||
| Joe Carosella Northeastern | Northeastern Corp | View Attachment | |
| Lonnie,Daigler | Homeowner | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| David,Gregory | View Attachment | ||
| zbudah | |||
| Suzanne,Wertz | Suzanne Wertz | View Attachment | |
| Greg,Goodridge | Private Engineering Consultant | View Attachment | |
| Greg Harkenrider | View Attachment | ||
| Gregory Woodrich | |||
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduits 1& 2 Year 1960 | View Attachment | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduits 1& 2 Year 1960 | View Attachment | |
| Gregory,Woodrich | Worked Niagara Hydro Power Conduits 1& 2 Year 1960 | View Attachment | |
| Meghan Liguori | Gregory Woodrich | View Attachment | |
| Filiatrault, Nathan | Guardian Glass Geneva Flat Glass Manufacturing Facility | View Attachment | |
| Danielle ,Spiegel-Feld | Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy & Land Use Law | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Kevin,Dailey | Green Waste Energy, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Kevin,Dailey | Green Waste Energy, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Miriam,Edwin | Miriam Edwin | View Attachment | |
| Emilie Hauser | View Attachment | ||
| CAROL WIDOM | View Attachment | ||
| Brown, Heather E. | Sullivan County Office of Sustainable Energy | View Attachment | |
| Lisa Marshall | HeatSmart Tompkins | View Attachment | |
| Heidi Simmons | View Attachment | ||
| Helen Condon | View Attachment | ||
| Henry Otten | View Attachment | ||
| Herschel Specter | MH Specter | View Attachment | |
| Dave Arquette | Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Katie,Rygg | Judy Harris | ||
| Kyle,Collins | H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. (“HQUS”) | View Attachment | |
| Manna Jo Greene | Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Steve Devine | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| ROBERT,CIESIELSKI | View Attachment | ||
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Inter-County Association of Western New York | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Alex,Gibson | Alex Gibson | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Eve,Morgenstern | Climate Reality Hudson Valley and Catskills | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Paul,Fisk | Retired; member The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | View Attachment | |
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Ingrid Otten | View Attachment | ||
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Iris ,Arno | Iris Hiskey Arno | View Attachment | |
| Richard,Forsey | View Attachment | ||
| A Mancuso | Anne & Dave Mancuso | View Attachment | |
| Jeremy,Grace | Penfield, NY Resident | View Attachment | |
| James & Diana Davies | View Attachment | ||
| James Hall | View Attachment | ||
| James Maringo | View Attachment | ||
| James Ralston | View Attachment | ||
| James Sacco Jr. | View Attachment | ||
| Jasmine Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Jay Mahler | Ulster County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| Mark,Lessans | Johnson Controls | View Attachment | |
| Jennifer Caci | View Attachment | ||
| Jerome Pawlak | View Attachment | ||
| Jess Mullen | View Attachment | ||
| Jessica Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Jim Sacco | View Attachment | ||
| John A Bifolco | View Attachment | ||
| John Langdon Marsh | View Attachment | ||
| John Morelli | View Attachment | ||
| Joyce DeVivo | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Julia Kristol | View Attachment | ||
| NYSAOTSOH - Megan | New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Fawn Tantillo | Ulster County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Saxton | The Climate Reality Project, Western New York Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Karen Harkenrider | View Attachment | ||
| SeamlessDocs | Kathie Holzschuh | View Attachment | |
| Kathy Ferto | View Attachment | ||
| Kathryn,Rygg | Citizens' Climate Lobby, Rochester | ||
| Kellen,Murphy | Murphy Forest Management, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Kennedy Fraser | View Attachment | ||
| Kevin Flanagan | View Attachment | ||
| Quinn Beckham | Key Capture Energy | View Attachment | |
| Richard Fennelly | View Attachment | ||
| Toll, Jessica | Kinder Morgan | View Attachment | |
| Klaus Hertler | View Attachment | ||
| Reyna ,Cohen | ALIGN, NY Renews | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Laura Burkhardt | View Attachment | ||
| Laurie,Poltynski | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Dragana,Thibault | Livingston Energy Group, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Jordan,Flanagan | LEILAC | View Attachment | |
| Barb Thompson | |||
| Susan H,Gillespie | Citizens for Local Power | View Attachment | |
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Damian Murphy | Peckham Industries, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Osgood, Sarah (NYSERDA) | HUNT Property Solutions | View Attachment | |
| Michael Hartner | Town of Gardiner Environmental Conservation Commission | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Assemblymember Didi Barrett | View Attachment | |
| Ryan Piche | View Attachment | ||
| Huck Montgomery | Liberty New York Gas | View Attachment | |
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Bruce,Geiger | Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association (LIGRA) | View Attachment | |
| Linda Monroe | View Attachment | ||
| Ryan Madden | Long Island Progressive Coalition | View Attachment | |
| LADA of NY | Liquid Asphalt Distributors Association of New York | View Attachment | |
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Lorraine Janssen | View Attachment | ||
| Erica Smitka | League of Women Voters of New York State | View Attachment | |
| Tiffany,Latino-Gerlock | MACNY - The Manufacturers Association of Central New York | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Mainspring Energy | View Attachment | |
| Pierson Stoecklein | Mainspring Energy | View Attachment | |
| Maria DeMallie | View Attachment | ||
| Marie Unson | View Attachment | ||
| Marion VanAken | View Attachment | ||
| Mark & Bonnie Bleeze | |||
| Mark Schaeffer | View Attachment | ||
| Mark Schaeffer | View Attachment | ||
| Mark,Thielking | Town of Bedford, NY | View Attachment | |
| Martha McGlynn | View Attachment | ||
| Martha,Upton | Sierra Club, Climatesmart Phillipstown Task Force | View Attachment | |
| Mary Kasaraneni | View Attachment | ||
| Mary T. Finneran | View Attachment | ||
| Mary Witherell | View Attachment | ||
| Todd Tranum (MAST) | Manufacturers Association of the Southern Tier | View Attachment | |
| Steven,Noble | City of Kingston | View Attachment | |
| Verspoor, Roy | City of Kingston Mayor | View Attachment | |
| Andrew,Davis | Mercuria Energy America, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Donna Runner | Mexico Academy and Central School District | View Attachment | |
| Richard L. Mezic | View Attachment | ||
| Michael Connors | View Attachment | ||
| Michael Giaimo | American Petroleum Institute | View Attachment | |
| Michael,Kusiak | View Attachment | ||
| Michael Lavelle III DDS | View Attachment | ||
| Livingston County | View Attachment | ||
| Michelle Egelston | View Attachment | ||
| Michelle Egelston | View Attachment | ||
| Kenneth Lee | Mirabito Energy Products | View Attachment | |
| Mitchell Colbert | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Board of Directors of South Shore Audubon Society | View Attachment | |
| Molly Kowalczyk | View Attachment | ||
| Mona Perrotti | View Attachment | ||
| Maggie Clarke | Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Maggie Clarke | Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Gerri,Wiley | View Attachment | ||
| Lorraine Farina | View Attachment | ||
| N. Defino | View Attachment | ||
| Shirley Hamilton | NAACP Niagara Falls Branch | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Nadia N.S. Maczaj | View Attachment | |
| Randy Rucinski | National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation | View Attachment | |
| Carlos,Gavilondo | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Lauten, Sheri | National Grid Ventures | View Attachment | |
| Echo,Cartwright | The Nature Conservancy NY Division | View Attachment | |
| Noelle,Connolly | View Attachment | ||
| Matthew Sheffer | Northeast Carbon Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa,Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association | View Attachment | |
| Adam Flint | Energy Democracy Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Cara Lee | Town of New Paltz Community Preservation Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Kelly R,Maracle | View Attachment | ||
| Joe Uglietto | Diversified Energy Specialists | View Attachment | |
| Dan,Mathis | Next100 | ||
| Jack,Brouwer | National Fuel Cell Research Center | View Attachment | |
| Gary,House | View Attachment | ||
| Ranslow, Ashley | National Federation of Independent Business | View Attachment | |
| Alana Daly | Northeast Gas Association | View Attachment | |
| Merrow, Sherrie | Natural Gas Vehicles for America | View Attachment | |
| Dawn M Timm | Niagara County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| Morris-McLaughlin, Nicole | Nicole Morris-McLaughlin, Erie County Department of Environment and Planning | View Attachment | |
| Dietmar,Detering | Nuclear New York | ||
| Katie,Baildon | Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York | View Attachment | |
| norm ungermann | View Attachment | ||
| norm ungermann | View Attachment | ||
| Bruce Swiecicki | National Propane Gas Association | View Attachment | |
| Bruce,Swiecicki | National Propane Gas Association | View Attachment | |
| Perry McGuire | Rinnai America Corporation | View Attachment | |
| Casey, Chris | Natural Resources Defense Council | View Attachment | |
| James,Brew | Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Laura Baker | Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Jaime,Reppert | View Attachment | ||
| Franklin Esson | New York State Association of REALTORS, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Suzanne Hunt | Generate Capital | View Attachment | |
| Zachary,Tatz | Transport Workers Union of America | View Attachment | |
| Paul Chudzik | View Attachment | ||
| Nora,Lovell Marchant | American Express Global Business Travel | View Attachment | |
| Duplicate Submission | Transportation Alternatives | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth Adams | Transportation Alternatives | View Attachment | |
| Paul Harvey | Northeast Dairy Foods Association | View Attachment | |
| Joselyn,Lai | Bedrock Energy | View Attachment | |
| Kelly,Colvin | Sysco (broken link) | ||
| Henderson,Scott | Covanta | View Attachment | |
| Avrielle Miller | NY Renews | View Attachment | |
| Paul D. Storfer | View Attachment | ||
| Scott Hedderich | Chevron Renewable Energy Group | View Attachment | |
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Marc,Cesare | View Attachment | ||
| Willam,Acker | NY-BEST | View Attachment | |
| Jennifer Caci | View Attachment | ||
| Yueming (Lucy),Qiu | Yueming (Lucy) Qiu, Xingchi Shen, Parth Vaishnav | View Attachment | |
| New Yorkers for Cool Refrigerant Management | View Attachment | ||
| New Yorkers for Cool Refrigerant Management | View Attachment | ||
| New Yorkers for Cool Refrigerant Management | New Yorkers for Cool Refrigerant Management | View Attachment | |
| Mike ,Hall | New York Aviation Management Association (NYAMA) | View Attachment | |
| Haym Gross | NYC 2030 District | View Attachment | |
| Restler, Lincoln | Council Member Lincoln Restler | View Attachment | |
| diana.sweeney nyecc.com | New York Energy Consumers Council | View Attachment | |
| Alice Hu | New York Communities for Change | View Attachment | |
| Sarah,Woodams | View Attachment | ||
| Jon,Randall | The Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Jen,Metzger | Policy Director, New Yorkers for Clean Power | View Attachment | |
| Jennifer Metzger | New Yorkers for Clean Power | View Attachment | |
| Colleen,Klein | New York Corn and Soybean Growers Association | View Attachment | |
| Keith Schue | New York Energy and Climate Advocates | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth Wolters | New York Farm Bureau | View Attachment | |
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Abigail Gonzalez | View Attachment | ||
| russ haven | New York Public Interest Research Group | View Attachment | |
| Bob,Zerrillo | New York Public Transit Association | View Attachment | |
| NYS Association of Conservation Commissioners | View Attachment | ||
| Cheyenne,Burke | New York State Bar Association; Environmental and Energy Law Section | View Attachment | |
| Dawn,Montanye | Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County | View Attachment | |
| Allen Schaeffer | Diesel Technology Forum | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Schultz | Sierra Club Niagara Group | View Attachment | |
| Karen London | Town of Bethel Sustainable Bethel Committee | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Stephen,Keyes | View Attachment | ||
| Amanda Jensen | NYS Laborers PAC | View Attachment | |
| NYS Reliability Council | View Attachment | ||
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Karen London | Town of Bethel Sustainable Bethel Committee | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Karen London | Town of Bethel Sustainable Bethel Committee | View Attachment | |
| Karen,London | Sustainable Bethel | View Attachment | |
| Anne,Dunlap | View Attachment | ||
| Janet Glocker | Haudenosaunee Nation | View Attachment | |
| David Slayton | View Attachment | ||
| Grace,Patterson | View Attachment | ||
| John Buckley | View Attachment | ||
| Ryan,Madden | Ryan Madden | View Attachment | |
| Sarah,Howard | Sarah Howard | View Attachment | |
| Brittany,Gray | View Attachment | ||
| Emily,Slomski | View Attachment | ||
| Hannah,Thorson | Hannah Thorson | View Attachment | |
| Keilka,Salsbury | View Attachment | ||
| Jeanette ,Marvin | NYS Agribusiness Association (NYSABA) | View Attachment | |
| Simon Skolnik | New Yrok State Association of Conservation Commissions | View Attachment | |
| Lisa Cuevas | NYS AFL-CIO | View Attachment | |
| Vito Grasso | NYS Academy of Family Physicians | View Attachment | |
| Franklin Esson | New York State Association of REALTORS, Inc. | ||
| Andrew ,Avery | New York State County Highway Superintendents Association (NYSCHSA) | View Attachment | |
| Julie Sullivan | View Attachment | ||
| Julie Sullivan | View Attachment | ||
| Jordan,Flanagan | AJW, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Gridley, David | NYSEG; RG&E | View Attachment | |
| Zack Dufresne | New York Solar Energy Industries Association | View Attachment | |
| Tom Hill | Boston Properties | View Attachment | |
| louise,belulovich | View Attachment | ||
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | TransGas Development Systems, LLC | View Attachment | |
| John,Cockerill | Exquisite Heat | View Attachment | |
| Adam,Victor | TransGas Development Systems, LLC | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | TransGas Development Systems, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Meaghan Shea | Senator Mike Martucci | View Attachment | |
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Jackie Bowen | Adirondack Council | View Attachment | |
| Jeremiah,Bretl | View Attachment | ||
| David,Mann | Oberon Fuels | View Attachment | |
| Odette Wilkens | Advocates for the EMS Disabled | View Attachment | |
| Alison,Wade | View Attachment | ||
| S Maione | View Attachment | ||
| Mary,Sprayregen | Opower/Oracle | View Attachment | |
| Warren Hart | Greene County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| ORLI PLUS INFO | Operation Resilient Living and Innovation, Plus | View Attachment | |
| Philip,Church | County of Oswego | View Attachment | |
| Anne Marie Mcshea | OW East | View Attachment | |
| Anne,McShea | OW Ocean Winds East | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Brook Jackson | Partnership for New York City | View Attachment | |
| Patricia Exware | View Attachment | ||
| Patrick,Ryan | Ulster County | View Attachment | |
| Paul Griggs | Griggs-Lang Consulting | View Attachment | |
| Paul Van Lindentol | View Attachment | ||
| Paula Hall | View Attachment | ||
| Teresa Bui | Pacific Environment | View Attachment | |
| Leddy, Maureen A (DEC) | Peconic Land Trust | View Attachment | |
| Peg Nare | View Attachment | ||
| Matthew,Stachura | View Attachment | ||
| Kimberly,Schaffer | Power for Economic Prosperity | View Attachment | |
| Peter,Connery | View Attachment | ||
| April McIver | Plumbing Foundation City of New York, Inc. and Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York, Inc | View Attachment | |
| Laura Haight | Partnership for Policy Integrity | View Attachment | |
| Phil,DeCicco | National Grid | View Attachment | |
| Philip & Beverly Pitcher | View Attachment | ||
| Philip Rose | United Climate Action Network | View Attachment | |
| Jeffrey Mang | Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association | View Attachment | |
| Gale Pisha | View Attachment | ||
| Peter King | View Attachment | ||
| Boyajian, Don | Plug Power Inc | View Attachment | |
| Tim,Cortes | Plug Power Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Justin,Gundlach | Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Paul Kolkmeyer | Priam Enterprises | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Daniel Fusco | View Attachment | ||
| Bill,W | View Attachment | ||
| Douglas,Galli | Reid Stores Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Lynn,Tiede | View Attachment | ||
| Janet Glocker | Janet Glocker | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Erich,Ely | Olin Corporation | View Attachment | |
| Naomi,Lisowski | |||
| Arthur Michael Ambrosino | Great Sacandaga Energy Metals | View Attachment | |
| Cushing, Vince | QCoeffecient | View Attachment | |
| Rachel Roldan | View Attachment | ||
| Ralph Desiderio | View Attachment | ||
| Ralph Rivera | View Attachment | ||
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Raymond,Albrecht | Raymond J Albrecht LLC | View Attachment | |
| Raymond Weinum | View Attachment | ||
| Paul Gallay | Resilient Coastal Communities Project | View Attachment | |
| Rene,Carver | View Attachment | ||
| Rene,Carver | View Attachment | ||
| Mc Clure, Renee V. | Renee V. McClure | ||
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Madison County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Stephanie Ullman | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| COTB- Loveless, Kelley | Wayne County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Village of Red Hook | View Attachment | |
| Maggie A. Smith | Town of Richmondville | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Town of Middletown | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Town of Middletown | View Attachment | |
| Dan,Casale | Rensselaer County Legislature | View Attachment | |
| County Attorney | Greene County | View Attachment | |
| Michelle Solcberg | Town of Marbletown | ||
| Michelle Solcberg | Town of Marbletown | ||
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Ryan O'Shaughnessy | Rever Copper Products | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | TransGas Development Systems, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Antonio,Reynoso | Brooklyn Borough President | View Attachment | |
| Rezwan Razani | View Attachment | ||
| Neil Koehler | Renewable Fuels Association | View Attachment | |
| Richard McGlynn | View Attachment | ||
| Paul Moore | View Attachment | ||
| Richard Ucci | View Attachment | ||
| D'Andrea, Jim | Rise Light & Power | View Attachment | |
| Tom Van Heeke | Rivian Automotive, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Ottinger, Prof. Richard L. | View Attachment | ||
| Yu Ann,Tan | RMI | View Attachment | |
| Elizabeth,Kocienda | New York City Bar Association Transportation Committee | View Attachment | |
| bany banybus.org | Bus Association of New York | View Attachment | |
| Robert,Conway | View Attachment | ||
| Robert Hall | |||
| Billii,Roberti | Green Choices Consulting | View Attachment | |
| Roger Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas Geothermal | Thomas Geothermal | View Attachment | |
| Robert,Jensen | Agreenability | View Attachment | |
| Ronald VanValkenburg | View Attachment | ||
| Rosenbarker | View Attachment | ||
| Dale Bryk | Regional Plan Association | ||
| Ruth Foster | NY Climate Advocacy Project | View Attachment | |
| Ryan Kincaid | View Attachment | ||
| Sam Lehr | Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas | View Attachment | |
| Samuel Mast | View Attachment | ||
| Arthur Michael Ambrosino | Great Sacandaga Energy Metals | View Attachment | |
| Pamela Atwater | Save Ontario Shores, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Alex Rodriguez | Save the Sound | View Attachment | |
| enpymarr | Taking a Lead on Zero Waste | View Attachment | |
| Town Clerk | Town of Jewett | View Attachment | |
| Robert ,Fitzgerald | |||
| Robert ,Fitzgerald | View Attachment | ||
| Mark Schaeffer | View Attachment | ||
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Schoharie County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Robert,Welton | Rensselaer Environmental Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Herb,Schrayshuen | View Attachment | ||
| Dianne,Sefcik | View Attachment | ||
| Roger Caiazza | |||
| Nicola Coddington | View Attachment | ||
| Nicola Coddington | |||
| Nicola Coddington | View Attachment | ||
| Sara,Eldridge | View Attachment | ||
| Kathy Schwarz | View Attachment | ||
| Laura,Faulk | The Climate Reality Project: Capital Region, NY Chapter | View Attachment | |
| Gay Nicholson | Sustainable Finger Lakes | View Attachment | |
| Randall,Atwater | View Attachment | ||
| Christina Carton | Mayor Ron Kim, City of Saratoga Springs | View Attachment | |
| Kathy Schwarz | View Attachment | ||
| Dave Inder,Comar | Just Atonement | View Attachment | |
| Marissa Pappas | Matt Bartley | View Attachment | |
| Marly,Medard | View Attachment | ||
| Scott,Loveland | View Attachment | ||
| Mark Sager | View Attachment | ||
| Joseph,Magel | Local 3 IBEW | View Attachment | |
| Sean Dague | View Attachment | ||
| Aaron Jones | SEIU 32BJ | View Attachment | |
| Kate,Ogden | SEVENTH GENERATION, INC. | View Attachment | |
| Sherry,Sass | View Attachment | ||
| Simon Skolnik | View Attachment | ||
| Dakota,Casserly | St. Lawrence County Planning | View Attachment | |
| Michael Press | NY State Senator Shelley Mayer | View Attachment | |
| Nathan,Rizzo | Solar Liberty | View Attachment | |
| Peg Buzzard | |||
| [email protected] | Board of Directors of South Shore Audubon Society | View Attachment | |
| Maria Fields | Sprocket Power | View Attachment | |
| A.J.,Baynes | AMHERST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. | View Attachment | |
| Stacey Gensel | View Attachment | ||
| Stanislaw Lapinski | View Attachment | ||
| Starr Hosier | View Attachment | ||
| KATHY JIMERSON | View Attachment | ||
| Dick Clark | View Attachment | ||
| Stephanie Seminara | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | View Attachment | ||
| Stephen Cheng | |||
| Stephen Tucker | View Attachment | ||
| STEVEN FLINT | View Attachment | ||
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Adrienne,Meisels | View Attachment | ||
| ROBERT,CIESIELSKI | View Attachment | ||
| diana.sweeney nyecc.com | New York Energy Consumers Council | View Attachment | |
| MD SAHADAT,HOSSAIN | SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry | View Attachment | |
| Jessica,Howe | SUNY ESF | View Attachment | |
| Susan Freiman | View Attachment | ||
| Susan Rossi | View Attachment | ||
| Susan Steinmann | View Attachment | ||
| Mellisa Naegeli | Town of Stuyvesant | View Attachment | |
| James Taylor Jr | Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Terry,Carroll | Tompkins County | View Attachment | |
| Shay O'Reilly via ActionNetwork.org | Stop Danskammer Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Teraine Okpoko | View Attachment | ||
| Rocco Lacertosa | New York State Energy Coalition | View Attachment | |
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | View Attachment | ||
| Francesca,Rheannon | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Shravanthi Kanekal | NYC Environmental Justice Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Justin,Gingrich | Hotshot Hotwires | View Attachment | |
| Justin,Gingrich | Hotshot Hotwires | View Attachment | |
| Laura,Kingdollar | View Attachment | ||
| diana.sweeney nyecc.com | New York Energy Consumers Council | View Attachment | |
| Therese Baxter | View Attachment | ||
| Thomas,Hirasuna | View Attachment | ||
| William,Gehm | LR Gehm LLC | View Attachment | |
| timothy,burpoe | molpus woodlands group | View Attachment | |
| Timothy Martin | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | View Attachment | ||
| Elizabeth,Rounds | Elizabeth Rounds, Supervisor, Town of Binghamton | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Sara,Culotta | Tompkins County Climate and Sustainable Energy Advisory Board | View Attachment | |
| Mike Sigler | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Don Airey | Town of Blenheim | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | David Brooks, Town of Denning Supervisor | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Town of Ossining | View Attachment | |
| Tracy Samson | James Oldenburg, Town of Scriba Supervisor | View Attachment | |
| James,Simon | The Town of Yates, NY | View Attachment | |
| Mary Kay Sullivan | Town of Kirkwood | View Attachment | |
| Tracie Soper | View Attachment | ||
| Mark,Bremer | SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry | View Attachment | |
| Jennifer Caci | View Attachment | ||
| Laurie,Feine-Dudley | UCAN | View Attachment | |
| Janet Glocker | Janet Glocker | View Attachment | |
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| Roger,Caiazza | Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York Blog | View Attachment | |
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations (duplicate of above) | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | No indication of who this is from. | View Attachment | |
| Susan,Freiman | Rockland Goes Green | View Attachment | |
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Mary Bartlett | United Climate Action Network | ||
| Mark,Sclafani | Utility Consultation Group (UCG) | View Attachment | |
| Zaepfel, Laura | Uniland Development Company | View Attachment | |
| pamela,a witmer | UGI Energy Services | View Attachment | |
| Smith Krzysiak, Jodi C. | Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc. | View Attachment | |
| j kogel | James Koegel | View Attachment | |
| Krish,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Krish,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Krish,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Krish,Sharma | Climate Reality Project | View Attachment | |
| Srihaan,Seelam | Robert E. Bell MS | View Attachment | |
| Summer Sandoval | UPROSE | View Attachment | |
| New Yorkers for Cool Refrigerant Management | |||
| Eva,Hoskin | United Solar Energy Supporters | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Utility Consultation Group | View Attachment | |
| Carlos,Gavilondo | Utility Consultation Group | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | Utility Consultation Group | View Attachment | |
| Roger,Caiazza | View Attachment | ||
| Dietmar,Detering | Nuclear New York | View Attachment | |
| Andrew,Miller | Velocys | View Attachment | |
| Jennifer LaMora | Village of Philadelphia | View Attachment | |
| Joe,Wadsworth | Vitol Inc. | View Attachment | |
| Walter Simpson | View Attachment | ||
| Hillary Aidun | Coalition of environmental, environmental justice, and economic justice organizations | View Attachment | |
| CJ,Kelley | View Attachment | ||
| [email protected] | Judith Myerson | View Attachment | |
| Judith,Myerson | View Attachment | ||
| Rinku,Bhattacharya | View Attachment | ||
| Tyler Taba | Waterfront Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Wayne Akley | View Attachment | ||
| Monahan, Cynthia | Wayne Central School District | View Attachment | |
| Leddy, Maureen A (DEC) | Wayne County Board of Supervisors | View Attachment | |
| Town of Hamden | View Attachment | ||
| Michael Romita | Westchester County Association | View Attachment | |
| Wes,Ernsberger | none | View Attachment | |
| dec.sm.ClimateAct | WestRock Company | View Attachment | |
| Alyssa Kealy | Northeast Dairy Producers Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance | View Attachment | |
| Bonnie,Sager | Alvin H. Strelnick | View Attachment | |
| Anya,Khurana | View Attachment | ||
| Michael,O'Friel | WIN Waste Innovations | View Attachment | |
| Timothy Winters | Western New york Energy, LLC | View Attachment | |
| Nicole Clarke | Assemblymember Carrie Woerner | View Attachment | |
| Nicole Clarke | Assemblymember Carrie Woerner | View Attachment | |
| John Bartow | Empire State Forest Products Association | View Attachment | |
| Jackie,Weisberg | 350Brooklyn | View Attachment | |
| Wyatt Warfe | View Attachment | ||
| Yoamma Soboeinska-Feimbaum | View Attachment | ||
| Z Zuklowitz | View Attachment | ||
| Kurt,Krumperman | Zero Waste Capital District | View Attachment |
Draft Scoping Plan Public Hearings
The Climate Action Council held 11 public hearings across the State to receive public input on the Draft Scoping Plan and advance work on the final Scoping Plan. There were nine in-person hearings and two virtual hearings were conducted.
| Date | Time | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Tuesday, April 5, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Bronx |
| Wednesday, April 6, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Brookhaven |
| Tuesday, April 12, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Binghamton |
| Thursday, April 14, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Albany |
| Tuesday, April 26, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Syracuse |
| Wednesday, April 27, 2022 (opens in new window) | 3:30PM | Buffalo |
| Tuesday, May 3, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Brooklyn |
| Saturday, May 7, 2022 (opens in new window) | 10AM | VIRTUAL |
| Tuesday, May 10, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Tupper Lake |
| Wednesday, May 11, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | VIRTUAL |
| Thursday, May 12, 2022 (opens in new window) | 4PM | Peekskill |