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