Introduction

On March 13, 2017, the New York State Assembly included the Climate and Community
Protection Act (CCPA) in their One House Budget proposal.We wanted to take the opportunity
to address the critique of the CCPA that is circulating around the NYS advocacy community. We
share the same basic goal as its authors: creating a New York that is healthy, safe, and
prosperous for everyone, free from the threat of catastrophic climate change.

Though their commitment to fighting climate change is evident and longstanding, their
contention that the CCPA as written would be useless -- or even somehow harmful to New
Yorkers -- is based on fundamental misunderstandings of the proposed legislation.

Over the past few months we organized multiple conversations in good faith with the authors of
the critique. Below we review points of respectful but honest disagreement, as well as points of
agreement. We end by recommending a new path forward for working together, a path marked
by unity of purpose and complementarity of priorities.

Based on the points of agreement, we already recommended and continue to advocate for
improvements of the bill to its legislative sponsors, and wholly support critics separately meeting
with legislative representatives to give their own views. But the assertion that NY Renews never
made recommended revisions to the sponsors is incorrect. It is our understanding that the
Assembly leadership made this decision because they wanted to go into the budget negotiations
with the Senate and the Governor with a position that New York has to set in law ambitious
climate action, especially considering the climate denialism coming out of the Trump
administration. Their action means it is now on the budget table for the Senate and the Governor
to react to, but does not preclude further changes.

We continue to be proud to support the CCPA

The CCPA represents a major step forward on climate and equity policy for New York State, and
NY Renews remains proud to support its passage. Why does the CCPA represent a major step
forward for New York?

First, it gives the states goal of eliminating all climate pollution from all sectors by 2050 the
crucial force of law. If the transition to a 100% renewable energy economy is going to be
successful, we need policy vehicles that can hold the state legally accountable for at least the
next three and a half decades. As were seeing with the Trump administration rollbacks, future
governors will have a much easier time undermining, weakening, or circumventing climate and
clean energy goals if theyre not enshrined in law. States like California have already put their
goals into law, and the certainty it allowed for much more stable investments in renewable
energy over time.

Second, it expands these climate goals to apply to all economic sectors. Currently, the Public
Service Commission (PSC) is only addressing the electricity sector, which creates approximately
20% (and falling) of the climate pollution emitted in NYS. The state must also tackle other
emitting sectors, including buildings and transportation. The CCPA makes them accountable to
do just that.
Third, it ensures that all state actions undergo a legally-binding climate and equity screen, to
make sure they do not contravene the above goals. This provides a critical new tool for anyone
contesting projects that could jeopardize the states climate progress or add a significant
additional pollution burden to communities already disproportionately impacted by
environmental injustice.

Fourth, it ensures that a minimum of 40% of state energy funding go to those communities that
suffer from disproportionate pollution burdens, or stand to be hit first and worst by the impacts
of climate change, so they get the resources they need to achieve sustainability and resiliency.
This means that as New Yorkers, we are coming together to prioritize the protection of our most
vulnerable communities in the face of a dangerous and uncertain future.

Fifth, the bill enshrines that fair labor standards be applied to all energy projects receiving state
funds. This is a critical policy protection to help ensure that the boom in renewable energy
maximizes the creation of good, family-supporting jobs and careers. State programs should
encourage the creation of a strong middle class, rather than low-wage, low-benefit work.

Finally, we continue to support this bill because of the wide array of stakeholders who have
informed, guided, and championed it. The NY Renews coalition is formed of over one hundred
groups from around the state that include environmental justice organizations, environmental
groups, labor unions, faith organizations, and grassroots community groups representing low-
income communities from Brooklyn, to Buffalo, to Brentwood. Over 30 organizations are
actively involved in crafting the coalitions policy and program, with a combined decades of
experience drafting and/or evaluating legislation on climate, environmental justice, worker
protection, and many other issues. Outside environmental law experts were also consulted on the
CCPA in particular, including the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia, and the
Columbia Law School Environmental Law Clinic.

Here is where we disagree fundamentally with the critique of CCPA

The claim that the 40% mandate for climate spending to benefit disadvantaged communities is
arbitrary and that prescription of this reinvestment will somehow hurt the communities it is
intended to help.

This is false, on two counts. First, the 40% number is based on an amalgamation of demographic
statistics, and roughly corresponds to the proportion of New Yorkers living in communities of
color and/or with household incomes of less than $50,000. For more on that analysis, see this
detailed memo. Second, this provision was developed and championed by many of the
organizations in the coalition that represent, work in, and are members of low-income and
communities of color. As weve noted before, it is critical that these organizations and
individuals be able to speak for themselves and identify their own interests, a crucial tenet of the
Jemez Principles of Democratic Organizing which guide the work of NY Renews. In other
words, disadvantaged communities are the experts on their own needs and experience, and that
expertise framed the language of the bill.

The 40% mandate is a critical policy defense against the historic pattern of disinvestment and
defunding that has left many vulnerable and disadvantaged communities with limited resources,
and disproportionately at risk from the impacts of climate change. It is also worth noting that the
bill requires that each state effort funded with market-based compliance funds ensure that 40% of
the funds directly benefit disadvantaged communities, which does not mean that all projects
must be physically located in those communities. It would be unhelpful and unrealistic to
prescribe in this legislation how each specific future project would comply. Rather, this is a tool
to force agencies to account for who benefits often literally with life and death consequences
from energy policy. The bill provides for an open and representative process, including the
directly affected communities, to refine the criteria for the projects that will be funded once the
bill is enacted.

California has passed a very similar bill, with hugely beneficial results. Not only have
disadvantaged communities in California won some assurance that the energy transition will lift
them up rather than default to leaving them behind, but the state actually consistently exceeds its
minimum requirement of energy funding allocated to these communities in pursuance of its
overall emissions reduction goals. This is not to say that Californias climate, equity and jobs
policies are perfect- far from it - but that this particular mandate is a successful model.

If New York fails to draw a similar minimum baseline, past experience with state energy policy
predicts the most disadvantaged communities will continue to be left behind in the economic
transition, compounding the inequalities that climate change arises from and contributes to,
which is not a just transition to a new energy paradigm.

This proposal is neither arbitrary nor harmful, and its critics underestimate the broad impact
of this policy as part of the bills directional requirement that all state agencies develop and
implement an equity screen for future decision making, and perform real analysis and
planning to improve policy impacts on those who have been ignored, marginalized, or hurt
in the past.

The claim that the CCPA is useless or counterproductive if it doesnt include a detailed path to
compliance.

Our legal system finds its basis in putting into place legal mandates, and then building out from
there. States like California and Massachusetts, for example, began with making a legal
commitment to action that could direct government and agency decision-making. This is not an
uncommon political and legislative strategy, and is in fact much more robust and enduring than
trying to set down through a single piece of legislation one highly prescriptive plan for the next
four decades of energy planning in New York. To suggest otherwise fundamentally
misunderstands how environmental law works, and the different roles the legislature and state
agencies play in making and enacting policy.
The CCPA requires the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to make
ongoing scoping plans be made on an iterative basis by the DEC to reach legally-binding
emissions reduction goals, in direct consultation with the Climate Action Council, environmental
justice advocates, and members of the public; the DEC is explicitly instructed to use the best
available economic models, emission estimation techniques, and other scientific methods. This
ensures the process is adaptable, evolving, transparent, and accountable to multiple stakeholders,
even as its being driven by the binding, legal requirement to eliminate anthropogenic climate
pollution from all sectors by implementing the scoping plans. Trying to insert a unilateral and
entirely speculative multi-decadal energy road map into a single piece of legislation would not
result in a stronger outcome.

We completely agree with critics that on its current path New York is unlikely to meet its
professed climate goals, which is precisely why we need the CCPA to give those goals teeth, so
that they begin to actually inform agency decision-making across the board, and on every level.

Finally, no single bill will ever be a panacea, and the CCPA was certainly never billed as such.
NY Renews is fully aware that passing the CCPA is an important first step on the long path to a
just and sustainable New York. That is why we are actively working on other fronts
simultaneously.

First, we are pushing New York to create a State Implementation Plan under the EPAs Clean
Power Plan and the next iteration of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to ensure life-
threatening pollution is reduced, frontline communities are protected, and policies put in place to
prevent using false solutions such as natural gas and incineration as we move toward a new
energy economy. Second, we are also developing new policy that would institute a polluter
penalty to actually generate significant new revenue necessary to a) support the workers and
communities affected by the transition away from fossil fuels, b) proactively invest in the clean,
renewable energy projects that will move us toward our climate goals while creating thousands
of good union jobs across the state, c) support disadvantaged communities to become more
sustainable and resilient, and d) provide energy rebates and support programs that buffer the
impact of pollution pricing on the lowest-income New Yorkers. This latter policy has been and
will be a major focus of our efforts.

The claim that the CCPA would somehow lead to an expansion of natural gas infrastructure.

It is important to make clear that NY Renews does NOT consider natural gas to be either clean or
renewable. Natural gas is one of the major contributors to climate pollution in New York, and
natural gas drilling and infrastructure has and continues to cause real risk and damage to
communities and the planet. We are as intent on preventing a proliferation of gas as anyone, and
we think the CCPA helps prevent this proliferation.

First, the core premise of the CCPA is a requirement that greenhouse gas emissions decline
progressively, until NYS eliminates anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Greenhouse gas emissions are specifically defined to include methane, along with carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and any other
substance emitted into the air that may be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
anthropogenic climate change. This reduction mandate applies to all sources of emissions, both
large and small.

Second, concerns have been raised about self-reporting being the only basis for emissions
tabulation in the bill. This is not true. See the bill text below:

1. NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE,
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, AFTER AT LEAST TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, PROMULGATE
RULES AND REGULATIONS REQUIRING ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REPORT-
ING FROM MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES. THE REGULATIONS SHALL:
A. ESTABLISH A GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REGISTRY AND REPORTING SYSTEM
FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES, WHICH INCLUDES GREENHOUSE GAS EMIS-
SIONS FROM ALL MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES, EXPRESSED IN TONS
OF CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENTS;
B. ACCOUNT FOR BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
INCLUDING EMISSIONS FROM ALL ELECTRICITY CONSUMED IN THE STATE, REGARD-
LESS OF WHETHER SUCH ELECTRICITY WAS GENERATED WITHIN THE STATE OR
IMPORTED FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, AND ACCOUNTING FOR TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION LINE LOSSES;
C. ENSURE RIGOROUS AND CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING OF EMISSIONS AND PROVIDE
REPORTING TOOLS AND FORMATS TO ENSURE COLLECTION OF NECESSARY DATA; AND
D. ENSURE THAT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES MAINTAIN COMPREHENSIVE
RECORDS OF ANY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REPORTED FOR AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS.

Self-reporting is, however, one cornerstone of the bills emissions accounting. This is also true of
the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Safe Drinking Water Acts, and nearly all of the countrys
environmental measures. While this system certainly admits the potential for attempts to falsify
reporting, there are mechanisms within the bill and environmental law more generally to
discourage cheating and to punish those who do under report. This is a common approach, and
again, is not at all mutually exclusive with other ways of improving emissions tabulations.

Third, concerns have been raised about reporting requirements as they relate to major and minor
sources. The bill requires that all major sources report their emissions, which is additional to any
existing or prospective reporting requirements, and therefore represents a marked improvement
on the current status quo. Though reporting would be impracticable and invasive to do for all
minor emissions sources statewide (every car and lawnmower, for example), the bill still requires
the state to promulgate regulations that bring their cumulative emissions down to zero, meaning
all emissions sources must eliminate emissions, including small gas plants. (See more on
greenhouse gas reporting below.)

Fourth, the CCPA goes even further in establishing a legally mandated climate test for all state
decision-making. This means that the state cannot move forward with a project or decision
unless it aligns with the mandate to eliminate human-caused greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,
and must seek alternatives to any inconsistent project to the maximum extent practicable. This is
a powerful new legal tool in the legal toolbox to hold decision makers accountable and can
contest fossil fuel projects--including gas and oil projects--that prevent NYS from achieving its
climate goals.
Fifth, there have been related concerns raised that the bill relies entirely on NYSERDAs
inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. This is untrue. The legislation directs the DEC to utilize
the best available scientific, technological, and economic information in consultation with public
stakeholders to ensure that all emissions are accurately reflected in its determination of emissions
levels. In other words, it bolsters rather than undermines ongoing efforts to improve
NYSERDAs and other inventories.

Finally, is the mere fact that the natural gas industry fought hard last year to stop this bill from
passing. The Business Council of New York, which represents most of the largest natural gas
and fossil fuel interests in NYS, issued a public memo attempting to tarnish the bill and halt its
passage, and lobbied behind the scenes with the same goal. It is unlikely they would have done
so if they believe the CCPA would be ineffective, or would somehow benefit their industry.

Here is where we agree with critics of the CCPA

The state needs to improve its emissions tabulations, and further account for the impacts of
methane.

We agree! There are serious concerns about how DEC, NYSERDA, and other state agencies
track emissions. We are eager to work together with all advocates doing the important work of
making sure these tabulations are as accurate as possible, and have already weighed in with
NYSERDA on this very point. The CCPA in no way undermines the possibility for making these
improvements, and in fact improves on the status quo by adding a new reporting requirement for
major sources. By giving climate goals the force of law, it also compels agencies responsible for
reporting oversight to get serious about bringing all human-caused emissions down to zero over
the next three decades, and in this way provides further basis and impetus for advocates to
improve the reporting process.

The goals of passing the CCPA and improving emissions tabulations on an ongoing basis are
completely complementary, and need not be shoehorned into the same piece of legislation to be
successful and mutually reinforcing.

We would support a bill that addressed our state emissions inventory comprehensively. Nothing
in the bill precludes that - it fundamentally supports this principle by offering a legal mandate for
action and relatively transparent public and legislative oversight.

The emissions reduction timeline in the CCPA could be improved

We agree with critics that the emissions reduction timeline could be improved to ensure a steady
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through 2050. We have made these recommendations to
the bill sponsors, and are hopeful these changes will be made.

Even without adjusting the timeline the basic efficacy of the bill would not be undermined, and
certainly would not lead to a proliferation of natural gas. The market signal is clear. New York is
committed to a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Investments in infrastructure that
will need decades to earn a return make no economic sense in a climate that will render those
projects obsolete in the near future.

That said, it will continue to be important for the state to use the best science available to
determine the most accurate assessment of current emission levels and establish regulations to
ensure we do not backslide from any emissions reductions already achieved.

The term capacity as used in the bill should be changed for clarity

The critics of the bill are correct to point out the difference between capacity and generation
as terms used in electrical engineering, though we believe it is clear that the legislation aims to
codify the State Energy Plan goal of mandating that at least half of the electricity load in New
York State be served by clean, renewable sources by 2030. We believe a change would help
with clarity, but would not be interpreted as substantively different. We have recommended to
the bill sponsors that they clarify these terms to reduce confusion and are hopeful that they will
be included. The overall legal mandate of the CCPA remains abundantly clear and is reiterated
throughout the bill text: that anthropogenic emissions be eliminated from our economy, period,
which can only mean 100% renewable energy- both in capacity and generation.

A productive path forward

Here is what weve tried to communicate in this open letter. The CCPA represents a huge step
forward for New York on tackling climate change, supporting workers, and protecting
environmental justice communities. Though we agree there are areas that could be improved, we
respectfully disagree that it contains anything that would render it ineffective, let alone harmful.
We believe these contentions are fundamentally grounded in a misreading of the bill, or a
misunderstanding of how environmental law is developed and promulgated.

At the same time, we fully acknowledge that the CCPA doesnt try to do everything. No one
piece of legislation can or should. The climate movement in New York is broad, diverse, and
powerful-- its ambition and its heart cannot be contained by any single policy. At any given time,
there are many different actors with a host of different priorities, working on dozens of different
campaigns.

We believe there is a beauty in this multiplicity of strategies, tactics, and perspectives. In fact, we
think its a sign of a vital movement. Rather than attacking each other for not having a singular
answer, or for disagreeing over theories of change, lets identify areas of complementarity and
build from there. We are committed to working with any and all allies to make sure NYSERDA
accounts properly for methane and other greenhouse gas emissions and to eliminate them all as
soon as possible.

The point here is that we are much more powerful as a movement when we build each other up,
than when we tear each other down. When we see ourselves as part of a complementary
ecosystem, united by common enemies and a common vision, rather than as individual actors
each with competing and mutually exclusive aims. We hope that this document helps clarify the
basis of, and justification for, the CCPA, which is truly an ambitious, far-reaching attempt -
albeit just one big first step - to solving the climate crisis we face. Weve got a long way to go to
secure justice and sustainability for all New Yorkers. We look forward to continuing the fight
and building the movement that will make that happen.

Sincerely,

NY Renews