Hochul Moves to Scrap New York's 2030 Climate Target
Get the Energy newsletter
Daily energy & climate — solar, EVs, oil, the policy fights and tech bets shaping the transition. Free.
- Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed eliminating enforcement of the 2030 emissions target (a 40% reduction from 1990 levels) under New York's Climate Act and replacing it with a new 2040 target, while keeping the 2050 target of an 85% decline unchanged.
- Hochul also proposed delaying implementation of regulations mandating greenhouse gas emission reductions until the end of 2030, which critics say would remove financial incentives for polluters to cut emissions for at least four additional years.
- Environmental organizations sued Hochul last year for failing to release the state's cap-and-invest plan by a January 2024 deadline; she lost the case but was granted the right to appeal.
- The state's cap-and-invest plan, never made public by Hochul, would have required polluters to buy emission "allowances" with revenue funding energy bill rebates and building electrification—policies advocates say would both cut emissions and lower costs.
- Dozens of scientists, including Cornell professor Robert Howarth, signed a letter opposing Hochul's proposed change to how the state calculates emissions, warning that de-emphasizing methane's near-term warming impact would undermine climate progress.
- State Sen. Kristen Gonzalez countered Hochul's affordability rationale, arguing rising utility costs stem from fossil fuel infrastructure and price volatility—citing events like the U.S.-Israel war in Iran—rather than from climate policy itself.
Why it matters: If the 2030 enforcement deadline is eliminated and regulations are delayed until end of 2030, New York effectively loses its nearest-term emissions accountability mechanism, giving polluters at least four more years without financial pressure to cut greenhouse gases. Hochul frames the rollback as an affordability measure, but a February NYSERDA memo cited by advocates as a "scare tactic" is the primary evidence she has offered, and environmental groups argue fossil fuel dependence—not climate rules—is what's driving up utility bills.
