Environmental advocates had hoped that this would be the year New York would pass large-scale, affordable environmental policies.
But when the legislative session ended after midnight Wednesday, state lawmakers had failed to enact any of the signature bills on an ambitious agenda that sought to curtail New Yorkers’ use of fossil fuels and plastics, nor the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.
It was up to Democrats in the Assembly to pass environmental bills already greenlit by the state Senate, but most of them did not get a floor vote on the final day of the session. Advocates pushing for the bills blamed a lack of leadership in the Democrat-controlled Assembly, while lawmakers noted an extensive lobbying campaign from large corporations.
“I’m not a happy camper,” said Assemblymember Deborah Glick, a Manhattan Democrat who leads her chamber’s Committee on Environmental Conservation.
“It is disappointing,” she added. “There's no question the public wants us to act on these issues, and especially if we want to energize young voters and get them to feel that there is, in fact, a response from government to their concerns.”
While lawmakers in support of the bills said their headcounts showed they had the votes to pass the bills, legislative leaders did not put them to a floor debate, suggesting the contrary.
When it was over, advocates said the bills failed to pass because of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie's inaction.
“There was a time when previous speakers of the Assembly stood up for protecting public health and the environment,” said Judith Enck, a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency who had pushed for a plastics reduction bill. “That time has passed.”
Heastie, though, said in a statement that he was a “Yes” on the plastics regulation, and criticized Enck for what he called, “lazy advocacy that expect a top-down approach from the Speaker.” He continued: “Contrary to popular belief, I am the most accurate vote counter in the Assembly so I have three words for Ms. Enck: ‘Continue the work.’”
Here are the environmental bills that gained the most traction during the state’s six-month legislative session, and where they ended up:
Package Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act
For the second straight year, the Legislature did not pass a bill that would have required companies to reduce their overall amount of packaging by 30% over 12 years.
To hit that target, the state would charge companies for excess packaging and distribute those dollars to municipalities. The bill would also have required companies to make three-quarters of the remaining packaging recyclable by 2052, and banned 17 chemicals found in packaging – such as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” and toxins like lead and mercury.
Republicans largely opposed the bill, and it is unclear to what extent Assembly Democrats stood united behind it.
Few bills considered this session saw as large a lobbying push from advocacy groups and corporations alike. The bill, which was the top lobbied non-budget item during March and April, drew pushback from L’Oreal, Coca-Cola, Keurig Dr. Pepper and Heineken USA Inc. – all companies that argued the bill set impossible standards for their industries.
“There were more lobbyists in the hallways ... than session typically would have,” said Assemblymember Anna Kelles, a Democrat representing parts of Tompkins and Cortland Counties.
That opposition lobbying push continued well into Tuesday, said Glick, who co-sponsored the plastics reduction bill with state Sen. Pete Harckham.
“This had broad public support, and we still had members who clearly were nervous for whatever reason,” Glick said. “There was the most obscene amount of lobbying. Every lobbying firm in this city was on the clock. We had Washington, D.C. lobbyists coming to Albany. That was unlike anything I have seen.”
Harckham, a Democrat who represents parts of Westchester County, said the bill was both an environmental and public health measure.
“We are drowning in trash and garbage,” he said. “And who is paying for it? Our taxpayers, our municipalities our constituents – instead of putting the onus on the people who are creating the waste and causing the pollution.”
Harckham and environmental advocates say the packaging bill had been heavily modified to accommodate corporate concerns. The original threshold for plastics reduction, for example, was set to 50%, but lawmakers agreed to lower it.
Glick, Harckham and environmental advocates pointed to studies conducted by Consumer Reports that found the packaging bill would cost New Yorkers nothing, while a Columbia University analysis found that at the “high end,” the packaging system would cost families $4 per month.
100-foot rule, and NY Heat Act
One measure that did pass will require New York residents to begin paying for new gas hookups even if their house is close to a gas line. Democrats hope the measure will disincentivize fossil fuel use and further the state’s environmental sustainability goals.
Repealing a policy known as the “100-foot rule” was a key part of the larger, more expansive New York HEAT Act, which advocates argued would have made the state’s utility grid more environmentally sustainable while lowering the cost of energy bills.
While Senate Democrats greenlit the HEAT Act, their counterparts in the Assembly pulled back and agreed Monday only to remove the decades-old policy that allowed residents to install a gas connection – free of charge – if their home was new and within 100 feet of an existing gas line. Utility companies would spread the cost to surrounding ratepayers.
Jo Anne Simon, a Brooklyn Democrat, said getting rid of the policy was a matter of principle.
“It is unfair for you and I to be paying for the hookups of people who are newly connecting to the gas system,” Simon said.
Assemblymember and Brooklyn Democrat Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn said the 100-foot rule “forces” New Yorkers to subsidize costly gas line extensions that are aging while the customer base is shrinking, costing ratepayers in New York about $200 million annually.
“Ending this subsidy would save all ratepayers money, immediately benefitting customers, and aligning utility subsidies with New York’s climate goals,” she said.
Republicans in the Assembly largely opposed the bill, saying that repealing the rule would make life in New York less affordable.
“Not forcing neighbors to pay for someone to hook up to gas, but we’re going to force the neighbors to pay for someone to hook up to electric, which is just a preposterous statement,” said Jodi Giglio, a Republican Assemblymember from Suffolk County. “New Yorkers’ choices are being taken away from them. ... We are making New York less affordable.”
Democrats in support of the full bill said the provision was a “minimal” and modest step, when the state should be switching to cleaner energy sources more aggressively and weaning off fossil fuels.
“It’s the bare minimum,” said Dana Levenberg, an Assemblymember from Ossining. “It isn’t actually getting at the big picture of what we really need to do, which is the New York HEAT bill.”
The New York HEAT Act, which would have capped utility bills and curbed future rate hikes, also sought to end another policy called the “utility obligation to serve gas” that requires the state to keep gas systems running even if only a single customer wants to stay on it.
Lawmakers say they hope to reconsider the HEAT Act next year.
Sewage sludge moratorium
Assemblymembers did not entertain a floor vote for a bill that would have banned the application of sewage sludge onto New York’s lands for five years.
The bill, which passed in the Senate, was a watered-down version of a three-pronged proposal that also would have required the state to study how the sludge is affecting soil in New York, and to establish a monetary fund to support farmers if their land was damaged by the sludge.
For decades, federal and state officials encouraged farmers to use sewage sludge or biosolids as a cheaper fertilizer alternative. The sludge is composed of human waste and industrial byproduct that’s processed in sewage treatment plants.
Lawmakers originally drafted the temporary ban proposal out of concern based on reports from the Environmental Protection Agency, other states, and Cornell University that found that sewage sludge can contain worrisome concentrations of toxic compounds, thereby potentially ruining farmland and exposing humans to health risks.
But Kelles, who co-sponsored the legislation with Harckham, said that national waste processing companies worked into Tuesday lobbying against the bill. They argued that the moratorium could be financially burdensome for municipalities looking to divert waste from costly landfills.
Kelles said waste companies, such as Denali and Casella, are making large profits by selling biosolids to New York municipalities and farmers, when they in are polluting soil in the state.
“We can protect our land by holding mega corporations accountable, so that they’re not just polluting our land indiscriminately,” Kelles said.
