FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: May 10, 2021

RE: Climate Action Council Meeting

Climate Action Council Members

Co-Chairs

• Doreen Harris, Acting President and CEO, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority
• Basil Seggos, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation

State Agencies & Authorities

• Richard Ball, Commissioner, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
• Marie Therese Dominguez, Commissioner, New York State Department of
Transportation
• Thomas Falcone, CEO, Long Island Power Authority
• Eric Gertler, Acting Commissioner and President & CEO-designate of Empire State
Development
• Gil C. Quiniones, President and Chief Executive Officer, New York Power Authority
• Roberta Reardon, Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor
• John Howard, Acting CEO and Chair, New York State Public Service Commission
• Rossana Rosado, Secretary of State, New York State Department of State
• RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner and CEO, New York State Homes and Community
Renewal
• Howard A. Zucker, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health

Council Appointees

• Donna L. DeCarolis, President, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation

• Gavin Donohue, President and CEO, Independent Power Producers of New York
• Dennis Elsenbeck, President, Viridi Parente Inc.
• Rose Harvey, Senior Fellow for Parks and Open Space, Regional Plan Association
• Bob Howarth, Professor, Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell
• Peter Iwanowicz, Executive Director, Environmental Advocates NY

1
• Jim Malatras, Chancellor of the State University of New York
• Anne Reynolds, Executive Director, Alliance for Clean Energy New York
• Raya Salter, Lead Policy Organizer, NY Renews
• Paul Shepson, Dean, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook
University

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Marie Therese Dominguez – The Transportation Panel recommends adopting the Clean Advanced
Cars Program and the Clean Fleets Program, as well as promoting strategic investments in electric
off-road vehicles through incentives, with enhanced incentives for lower-income New Yorkers to
purchase electric vehicles. The Panel also supports the Clean Fuel Standard to produce renewable
biofuels, which will accelerate the emissions reduction timeline and provide ample support for
electrification. The Transportation Panel also recommends strategic investment in enhanced public
transportation. Investments must prioritize and transform infrastructure, deploying zero-emissions
fleets, and targeted investments in STEM learning. These efforts also encourage smart growth and
investments in hydrogen fuel cell best technologies. Smart Growth is a key aspect of these
recommendations, which includes economic, equity, and environmental concerns to reduce
emissions. State policies are moving toward more climate-friendly mobility options, such as
walking and biking. Land use and transportation considerations are tied to enabling smart growth
and supporting sprawl at the state and local levels. Our market-based strategies will require public
investment and participation in the multistate Transportation and Carbon Initiative (TCI) Program
to achieve New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) goals. Other
options considered by the Panel include congestion pricing, pricing for parking, and increased
regulation fees for high-emissions vehicles. Private financing can also be used to promote fleet
electrification and electric vehicle infrastructure.

Dennis Elsenbeck – On the low-carbon transition modes, employers already recognize their
employee commuting-related needs, especially in our rust belt communities. What requires further
exploration is that smart growth also indicates economic development backfill, which means
thinking about how to bring clean technology opportunities to localities first and then focus on
creating job opportunities in these communities. That backfill component is critical to funding the
new transportation sector. Incentives born by rate payers must reinvest in clean manufacturing
within New York for the state to stay competitive. Clean energy funding needs to create sustainable
jobs, solve local solutions, and create opportunities in local communities. On infrastructure, we
have to look at local economic development needs. Our rust belt communities don’t have the
resources to implement many of these recommendations. California energy policy has run into

10
demand-side issues. It is not perfect, because it has forced energy and vehicle charging shutdowns.
New York can find a batter balance.

Dominguez – On smart growth, the Transportation Panel and the Department of Transportation are
looking at the larger notion of transportation-oriented development. Those strategies link
economic considerations with the local communities. State agencies are also working on local
revitalization initiatives. For example, Oswego has become more pedestrian-friendly, which has led
to additional economic development opportunities. Growth in the core economic demand brings
everything from more port activities to more business development and more housing
development from those investments. Integrating opportunities for transit and reducing fossil fuels
at-large is the match we are looking at in areas like Rochester, Buffalo, and across New York.

Elsenbeck – Some of those incentives and plans should be targeted toward total job growth in that
sector. That should be part of the integrated strategy.

Dominguez – Agreed, that is a critical piece. On the concerns about California issues, the Panel is
looking at what they have done and are not necessarily applying their policies wholesale.

Raya Salter – How would these recommendations ensure populations are benefiting in
Environmental Justice (EJ) communities? Will they involve accountability? Also, were minority
opinions considered in the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) and other
recommendations?

Dominguez – Members of the CAC have expressed concerns over market-based solutions, including
TCI. One panel member also expressed support for the Climate and Community Investment Act
(CCIA) as an alternative. The Panel envisions TCI as a funding strategy that benefits communities
with incentives for the purchase of electric trucks. Under the CLCPA at least 35-40% of benefits are
mandated to directly benefit EJ communities.

Basil Seggos – The Council has to hit targets that are set in the law while ensuring benefits are
targeted. That will be taken up in future laws and regulations, so the Panel hasn’t yet fully
determined exactly how those dollars will be distributed.

Salter – We want to develop those specific markers that encourage the best ways to make progress.

Dominguez – Those 35-40% markers benefiting EJ communities and the markers mentioned are
being taken seriously.

Anne Reynolds – On the money question, this is the third time around in terms of a climate planning
initiative in New York State. The first was in 2004 under Governor Pataki, and another in 2010,
when the Comprehensive Climate Plan was developed, and now this. Great recommendations for
the transportation sector were brought up then as well, and they are actually non-controversial,
because nobody is opposed to smart growth. The missing piece each time has been having a
dedicated source of revenue to pay for this. Regulations alone are not enough to provide a clean
transition. The TCI recommendation is a good measure, because it’s also a cap on emissions and
other states also participate in the TCI. Another way to get that dedicated revenue through
legislation or other means could also work, but TCI is an option that is currently in front of us.
There must be a dedicated revenue source for these ideas to come to fruition.

11
Dominguez – The Panel recognizes there’s not one solution to pay for all of this, and are looking at a
series of investments, like green bank strategies and leveraging investments into public and private
partnerships. Any revenue streams would have to be taken on wholistically.

Doreen Harris – This is an important topic for the Council to take up over the coming months. The
Council is looking at ways to address finance.

Bob Howarth – Transportation is making up about 29% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
these recommendations can cut this to 16% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, but the law calls for
cutting emissions by 40% by 2030, not just 16 percent. Also, it was mentioned that by 2050, that
these recommendations will lead to a 77% cut, but the CLCPA mandates an 85% cut economy-wide.
There are challenges to reduction in all sectors, so is the Panel looking at more aggressive
strategies? Also, on the advanced materials, one detail under the Clean Fuel Standard slide notes
that some biofuels wouldn’t generate credits under CAC accounting. What makes sense in terms of
biofuels and the current standard under New York law and the CLCPA? Going too far in that
direction is tricky, because guidance is not yet clear on that.

Dominguez – The Panel looked at recommendations that would achieve the larger CLCPA goals and
inform the larger integration analysis process that will take place. There are self-help mechanisms
assumed in the recommendations to meet the requirements of the larger CLCPA, including
cooperative strategies and investments. The scoping plan will provide flexibility for that.

Jarred Snyder – On the low carbon fuels, that will be addressed in the integration process as we
determine available fuels and best uses. There is a role for technology and fuels like biodiesel,
because they don’t involve imported fossil fuels. Renewable biogas might be more difficult and
would need to be evaluated in the integration analysis. On emissions reductions, a big part of the
rest of that reduction is made up through aviation fuels. There will be technology development and
we will need that to effectively address aviation fuels as that progresses.

Dominguez – The Panel purposefully included representation from the aviation industry on the
advisory panel to address that issue.

Howarth – 2050 is long way out, but the Council needs to be more aggressive on the 2030 targeted
reduction.

Donna DeCarolis – How does the Council look at policy recommendations for transportation that
will require infrastructure buildout and customer behavior changes so the timing of demand
growth is matched with the timing of supply growth on the power generation side? How does the
Council reconcile the policies if buildout doesn’t happen fast enough on the demand side? Also, how
should it be determined which recommendations are advanced with so many put forward for
consideration?

Dominguez – The integration analysis process is meant to create a wholistic approach on timing and
the level of investment on all fronts. That’s why the integration analysis is so critical. It will
determine which recommendations are taken on.

Harris – On next steps, the Panel will share a summary of these recommendations in an aggregated
form, so that the Panel can all look at this wholistically. Some recommendations lend themselves to
modeling more than others.

12
Gavin Donohue – The focus on market-based outcomes and new hydrogen technology development
is important. On infrastructure, there are many requirements toward ensuring a reliable grid, so
what work went into creating a system to deal with this? Also, what thought has gone into
managing the grid with all this new demand?

Dominguez – The Power Generation Panel has worked on this issue of making sure the grid is
prepared for the new generation. They will speak on this.

Snyder – The Power Generation Panel met with utility groups to address these issues. Policies that
would shift demand to areas with excess capacity on the grid means stimulating changes in
behavior. This will be a critical part of the integration analysis.

Harris – There is also an ongoing study that was issued earlier this year on the power grid that is
being undertaken by the Department of Public Service.

Peter Iwanowicz – Transportation will likely be an easier sector than others to achieve reductions,
despite the issues. What is not covered in the 23% shortfall that is not covered by 2050? Is the
Transportation Panel recommending all farm vehicles should be singled out in terms of the off-road
vehicle recommendations? That was not recommended by the Agriculture Panel in April. Also, in
2013, New York signed a multi-state MIU. Is that still in existence? Transit-oriented development is
a great approach, but did the Transportation Panel directly consult with local governments on this,
and if so, which in specific? Also, low carbon fuels and TCI don’t necessarily achieve emissions
reductions in specific communities. The concept of carbon neutrality in the transportation sector
doesn’t fit into the scheme where you can offset emissions elsewhere. Often times the CLCPA is
looked at based on the money that is sent into the communities and not the resulting emissions
reductions. Trading schemes like low carbon fuels standards and TCI don’t prioritize emissions
reductions. Also, to what extent is the Panel looking at motor vehicles as energy storage devices?
There will be millions of vehicles on the roads by 2050, so the role of motor vehicles is important to
grid shortening. Finally, discussion on market-based funding mechanisms is important for
economy-wide funding strategies to support a just transition. The CCIA is a funding and spending
strategy that is mostly supported by those who want polluters to pay for emissions, and it ensures
spending happens in communities that have been most effected. The CCIA was developed by those
on the front lines to help those on the front lines.

Snyder – On the LCFS, that isn’t necessarily carbon-neutral, and is more about reducing emissions
throughout the State. The CLCPA mandates a consideration for anything that reduces upstream
emissions, and using biofuels produced by waste might reduce waste emissions in New York State,
for example, to achieve reductions while also promoting electrification. Caps and investment plans
like TCI don’t enforce emissions, but the revenues can be used to achieve that. The Panel is
recommending a mandate that producers must sell 30% electric trucks by 2030, for example. That
can be targeted to communities where it will have the greatest benefits. On the 23% remaining
besides aviation, there will also be some diesel emissions by 2050, because the State will not be
electrifying all new truck sales until 2045. Some older trucks will still be on the road by that time
unless the State implements new incentives. The Panel didn’t directly address farming but
mentioned the need to address off-road electrification with transportation. On interstate initiatives
like the 2013 agreement and TCI, the Panel is working with other states to make sure manufactures
abide by the standards of the zero emissions vehicle mandates.

Dominguez – Farming equipment was not singled-out in a specific recommendation, but was
emphasized in the need for additional electrification. On local government smart growth, the

13
Panel met with the Local Land Use Advisory Panel and determined local governments are looking at
smart growth and transportation-oriented development as a smart business model on a consistent
basis. Encouraging that development through strategic investments is how we are looking at local
government.

Reynolds – is the CAC considering all of these recommendations for implementation? Requirements
are needed to reduce emissions in the right places and having enough money to do so. TCI and the
LCFS need regulations in order to be effectively targeted.

Dominguez – The Panel acknowledges that these are wholistic measures that we are taking on as
technology advances and new issues arise in the effort to reduce GHGs. What is on the table now is
comprehensive, and there is a need to remain open to new advancements that can help the Council
further achieve the goals of the CLCPA.

Paul Shepson – Investment in public transportation comes with the issue of more extreme climate
events. How can the CAC address areas of vulnerability and make efforts to build climate-resilient
public infrastructure?

Dominguez – This is a huge element of building-out transportation standards with sustainable

infrastructure. Porie Saikia-Eapen, who is with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, is also
on the Panel, and has been helpful in highlighting how the State has taken on resiliency measures in
our recommendations. The Panel is coordinating with resiliency work groups in this effort as well.

Salter – Resiliency is important and accountability metrics should be prioritized in disadvantaged

communities as the CAC works to achieve its emissions goals. Doing work with utilities will help
develop these metrics.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Shepson – The community and statewide dashboard idea would bring measured progress. There are
tremendous feedback opportunities for everyone in the State to observe where the State is going in
real time. Inventories are always wrong to various extents, especially for methane emissions, so it is
widely known that it is helpful to have interplay between inventories and observations. Did the
Panel discuss incorporating observations of GHG emissions across the State at various scales, and
incorporating that into the information provided by the dashboard?

Brad Tito – The recommendation involves establishing a working group to explore best methods for
this kind of accounting. That could involve direct monitoring, or estimating emissions. The Panel
has not dialed-in on what the exact methodology would be, but it would be accessible and useful for
everyone across the State.

26
Howarth – Will the Panel recommend particular priorities? Having fewer options is best. The
dashboard idea is important so that local communities have the ability to do GHG emissions
accounting. That will help organize state emissions records according to CLCPA guidance. On blue
carbon, these systems in fact store very little carbon in the context of New York. The land use, smart
growth, and GHG accounting are the most important priorities.

Sarah Crowell – On blue carbon, the Panel recognizes it may not have carbon sequestering potential,
but it does have resiliency benefits for protecting coastal ecosystems and wetlands, despite not
being at the same level as the State’s forestry areas. The central goals of providing a dashboard and
providing planning assistance are key priorities. Tompkins County is an example of one area that
needs new tools for accounting systems in this regard.

Howarth – All can agree that wetlands and coastal systems should be protected, but the CAC should
push its true value rather than pushing for blue carbon, which will simply not work in New York.

Salter – The dashboard idea would be helpful for providing data and monitoring. Has the Panel
looked into incorporating schools and universities in the data-gathering efforts? Also, how does the
CAC bring together different local laws in ways that don’t bring about disproportionate burden for
disadvantaged communities?

Crowell – The Panel’s more detailed recommendations consider universities and schools as critical
partners in achieving these goals. That is where the innovation, research, and workforce training is
happening. The Council can ensure that decisions are made in ways that reduce disproportionate
impacts by including local communities in the decision-making processes. For example, the
brownfield opportunity is a model for bringing the community into the process and directing
investments.

Elsenbeck – The value for the CAC is developing wholistic, non-silo-based recommendations and
solutions. Most of the models that have been created look forward in terms of how they will
respond to electric vehicle demand. There is a disconnect between smart growth regulations and
utility oversight, so there is an opportunity to bring those together. On intelligence development,
considering clean technology and manufacturing investments in terms of incentives based on what
is built in New York to achieve our CLCPA goals and make the State a global competitor. Backfill in
rustbelt communities provide a real opportunity for this if it is developed correctly with smart
growth. Coordination with investors will be critical for this going forward as well. Connecting
homes, businesses, and institutions with clean energy projects means bringing these pieces
together in terms of infrastructure and capacity. Also, the definition of “resiliency” belongs in the
hands of the energy consumers, and depends on site readiness. Implementation often faces issues
stemming from building codes that are too far behind the State’s carbon emissions goals, so more
progressive viewpoints are needed from the Department of State in the effort to update building
codes in alignment with our climate action goals.

Crowell – Bringing everything together is definitely a big opportunity, and remains a huge challenge
across all sectors. The Panel talked with the Department of State, but there is more to come.
Economic development means job creation and reusing sites that have impacted communities in
the past. The option of expanding the Smart Growth Infrastructure Act also means bringing in more
state agencies to touch on state investments overall.

Rose Harvey – The Parks Department had NYSERDA do some cost-related audits that had university
participation. Audits don’t take much time, and would include highlighting the impacts on the

27
communities that have been underserved. The building codes are certainly an issue in localities. Old
codes stop a lot of good progress. Can the Panel provide examples of what could be removed in
terms of local codes that are clearly stopping progress, or where there are conflicts between state
and local codes? A review of that would be helpful and could promote community participation.

Crowell – On the audits, that’s the exact type of hands-on assistance that was discussed at the local
level. Not just providing a grant or guidance, but giving folks an opportunity to make a change at the
local level. It seems simple, but many don’t have the time or capacity to do this without some
guidance. On modernizing building codes, the Energy and Housing Efficiency Panel and the
Department of State are working this, but it is a difficult process that takes time. The Panel looked
at ensuring as the building code evolves, that local governments have the tools they need to
implement changes at the local level. Modernizing the code means making sure it is implementable
and doesn’t disproportionately impact rate payers or those least able to take on the additional cost.

Reynolds – Of the suite of recommendations relating to education and outreach, are any of those
mandatory? If not, was that discussed as a possibility?

Crowell – That did come up in discussions. the Panel defaulted toward incentives for education
rather than mandates, because local government is ultimately responsible for making land use
decisions. It’s more difficult to make mandates where incentives can serve the same goals.

Tito – Statewide advancements for polluting policies like aligning buildings codes and public
financing would also require legislation. It’s about creating an approach that applies evenly across
the board, so local governments aren’t put at a competitive disadvantage for the clean energy
policies they have adopted. The Panel does not want to penalize localities for adopting something
that is more advanced.

Iwanowicz – On land use and Carbon sequestration, is this meant for local habitat protection, or as a
potential pollution offset? On making a just transition, to what extent was the role of community-
based organizations considered, such as the efforts in Sunset Park with Up roads, the Point CDC,
and Push Buffalo, for example, as models? Also, providing money to local governments could be
done through a grant program, such as expanding the Environmental Protection Grant Program. On
the state energy code, is this a suggestion that a statutory plan can’t be updated to meet the states’
energy goals? Finally, is there anything on the intersectionality between land use decisions
involving anything the State can do now that local governments may need to change zoning codes
for in order to implement? Gasoline storage codes take time to change, for example, and the CAC
would not recommend the building of new gas stations.

Crowell – On Carbon sequestration, the Panel didn’t consider this as an offset. It was more about
preservation of wetlands. On just transition, the inclusion of some of those examples as models
worth replicating was discussed. Grants for local governments were also considered and there are
many recommendations for direct grants to municipalities. The Consolidated Funding Allocation
process will provide funding for municipalities to do more comprehensive smart growth plans, for
example. The Council has existing authority for most of the changes the Panel is recommending for
the energy code, but there is a process for updating that and making changes. Land use permits
have an impact on land use decisions, and the requirements on this front are nuanced.

John Howard – These recommendations seem to conflict with the State Constitution dealing with
home rule. Large-scale renewable energy siting and rolling back land use planning to the state
government means that the ability for localities to make decisions will be irreconcilable going

28
forward. Enhanced building codes is the first place to start. Setting specific standards will not be as
efficient as implementing a single statewide plan or goal. These recommendations won’t be possible
without more authority from the State and finding ways to work with those more reluctant local
governments.

29