Potential economic impact of HEAT Act raises concerns in N.Y. business community

New York business leaders continue to push back against the New York HEAT Act as a week of climate action at the state Capitol continued Thursday with advocates urging the passage of the bill this upcoming session.

It comes after groups held a three-day sit-in urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to sign the Climate Change Superfund Act, which would require big oil companies to pay $3 billion per year for 25 years to cover climate change-related costs.

The groups say 19 “elder activists” were arrested after protests lingered after closing time at the state Capitol, a number confirmed by state Police.

The governor is involved in three-way negotiation over potential chapter amendments to that bill. On Thursday, attention turned to the HEAT Act, as well as another bill requiring state buildings to transition to renewable energy within three years.

Advocates say New York ratepayers are subsidizing the state’s reliance on natural gas by paying gas companies to provide gas hookups to new customers within 100 feet of a gas line. The bill would eliminate the “100 Foot Rule” that requires those hookups. They also insist the bill would limit households’ energy burdens and allow utilities to provide cheaper and clean heating alternatives at “no additional cost to customers.”

“We call on Governor Hochul to include the New York HEAT Act in full in her executive budget. This bill is crucial for energy affordability and to move our state away from dirty fossil fuels in our homes and buildings. We must show leadership to the country here in New York.” said Isaac Silberman-Gorn, an organizer with Frack Action.

The legislation has been stubbornly difficult to get over the finish line, particularly in the Assembly. Very few people disagree with the idea of lowering emissions, but it’s the potential economic impacts that have many concerned.

“I think it’s really important that policymakers keep in mind the unintended consequences of what they’re trying to do,” said Justin Wilcox, executive director of Upstate United.

Business leaders in New York, including Upstate United and the Business Council of New York State, have long expressed concern that the HEAT Act’s broad strokes will negatively impact New York’s businesses and its ability to attract new ones.

Wilcox stressed that he supports lowering emissions but feels the bill’s broad authority granted to the Public Service Commission to align utility policy with CLCPA mandates would put New York at a competitive disadvantage.  

“Folks in the economic development space, they’re talking to companies that want to locate in New York, however, other states are continuing to develop all types of energy at a lower cost,” he said.

Another economic concern with the bill is how it will impact ratepayers.

It has a 6% income cap built in for low-to-moderate income New Yorkers, that’s below 80% of the state or area median income. But state Senator Tom O’Mara is concerned the limited cap could leave everyone else exposed to higher costs.

“Across the board in our economy, that’s the way it works,” he said. “There is just no doubt that these costs are going to be passed on to average, everyday middle-class ratepaying New Yorkers.”

Addressing activists at the state Capitol Thursday, Assemblymember Phil Steck took on criticism of the bill.

“The misinformation, the propaganda,” he said. “People believe, even members of the legislature believe, that this bill would require people to spend $40,000 retrofitting their homes. This message is being sent out, in particular to senior citizens and they are terrified. We have to do a better job.”

Speaking with the group, Steck recalled a recent debate in which he asked the audience how many had seen increased costs related to the state’s energy goals, and no one raised their hand.

Wilcox said regardless of how the bill will impact individuals, on an economic development level, he finds it hard to see how increased regulation won’t create logistical challenges for New York’s other goal: rebuilding its manufacturing base, even if companies like Micron are working to find alternatives.

“We don’t have the technology to meet those goals right now,” he said. “Companies like Micron have said they absolutely need reliable and affordable energy, and have indicated that right now is natural gas.”