Late last week, I reported that New York State was racing to ban natural gas in some new construction via the state’s 2024 budget, which included a future ban on natural gas hookups in new building construction.
The legislature has gone all-in on the climate crisis mania.
New York has become the first U.S. state to pass legislation banning the use of natural gas for heating and cooking in some new buildings, a plan designed to reduce carbon emissions but opposed by industry groups as excessive and costly.Both the Democratic-led Assembly and Senate late on Tuesday approved the provisions, which are included the state’s $229 billion budget. Governor Kathy Hochul and lawmakers agreed to the outlines of the spending package last week….The move in New York comes amid fierce public debate in the United States over the health and environmental impacts of the cooking appliances that burn fossil fuel and over the broader role of natural gas in climate change.
Several exemptions include emergency backup power and commercial food establishments, laboratories, and car washes. But others see the looming unintended consequences and are pushing back.
Opponents derided the New York bill’s passage as governmental overreach. Republican Robert Ortt, the minority leader of the New York Senate, issued a statement criticizing the law as a “first-in-the-nation, unconstitutional ban” that “will drive up utility bills and increase housing costs.”Michael Fazio, executive vice president of the New York State Builders Association said the new law would lead to construction delays and uncertainty for developers, especially those wondering if their current projects will be essentially grandfathered in, or need to be changed to comply with the 2026 deadline.“We are concerned that the gas ban will hinder new housing affordability and make New York less competitive with its neighboring states that have been outpacing New York in new home construction over the last several years,” Fazio said in an email.
Others, seeing the inherent problems associated with relying on wind and solar energy in New York, are pushing for more nuclear power plants.
State officials want to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. But as New York works to meet that goal, advocates for nuclear power like Isuru Seneviratne say wind and solar may not be enough.”If you’re talking about 90% or 100% emission reduction, you need some sort of means of generation for when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow,” he said.Seneviratne, a member of the steering committee of the advocacy group Nuclear New York, is calling for New York officials to consider how nuclear power could be part of the state’s effort to transition to cleaner forms of fuel.Upstate New York is home to four reactors. John Murphy of the United Association Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters says there’s an economic benefit as well.”It is an economic engine. It keeps towns alive and these are multi-generational jobs,” Murphy said. “Good quality, union jobs.”
It will be interesting to see if opponents of the construction ban will take their case to court. As a reminder, a similar measure Berkeley, CA, attempted to impose was tossed out by a federal court.
I would think the New York rules also go against the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
By completely prohibiting the installation of natural gas piping within newly constructed buildings, the City of Berkeley has waded into a domain preempted by Congress. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c), expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens. Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result. It enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless.The California Restaurant Association [CRA], whose members include restaurateurs and chefs, challenged Berkeley’s regulation, raising an EPCA preemption claim. The district court dismissed the suit. In doing so, it limited the Act’s preemptive scope to ordinances that facially or directly regulate covered appliances. But such limits do not appear in EPCA’s text. By its plain text and structure, EPCA’s preemption provision encompasses building codes that regulate natural gas use by covered products. And by preventing such appliances from using natural gas, the new Berkeley building code does exactly that.We thus conclude that EPCA preempts Berkeley’s building code’s effect against covered products and reverse.
Unless the rule gets reversed or New York state starts rapidly building nuclear power plants, the unintended consequences to New Yorkers will be many and painful.
Meanwhile, the mocking of initially expressed concerns has commenced.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY