NYLCVEF educational forums bring together elected officials, environmental leaders, and the general public for discussion on timely environmental policy issues. Our educational forums take a variety of forms – ranging from multi-day events with hundreds of attendees to intimate roundtable discussions with industry leaders.
On Wednesday, May 18th, NYLCVEF and our partner, Sustainable Westchester held a virtual Lunch and Learn focused on the Scoping Plan for New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The CLCPA is among the most ambitious climate laws in the world and requires New York to transition to a zero-emission electricity sector by 2040, including 70 percent renewable energy generation by 2030, and to reach economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050.
On July 18, 2019, the CLCPA was signed into law. The law also created the Climate Action Council which is tasked with developing a Draft Scoping Plan that serves as an initial framework for how the State will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy usage, and ensure climate justice.
The Lunch & Learn focused on several topics within the scoping plan. We heard from the below experts on each of these areas:
Read more about the speakers, here: CLCPA BIOS 5.18.22.pdf.
The comment period for the scoping plan is open now and attendees were encouraged to take the information they learned during the session and comment on the plan through NYSERDA’s website. Click here to check out NYLCVEF’s and Sustainable Westchester’s comment guide and to learn more about how to make a comment: CLCPA Scoping Plan Guide.pdf.
If you were unable to attend, watch the recording of the Lunch & Learn here: NYS Climate Act: Understanding the Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan Learn and Act Webinar.
On October 20th, 2021, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) held a forum with the candidates for Huntington Town Supervisor -- Ed Smyth, Rebecca Sanin, and Eugene Cook -- to discuss their stances on a range of environmental and sustainability issues. The Forum was moderated by NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe and environmental panelists included Adrienne Esposito from Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Eric Alexander from Vision Long Island, and Mariah Dignan from Climate Jobs NY.
Ed Smyth is a practicing lawyer in the Town of Huntington, a US Marine Staff Sergeant veteran, and serves as a Councilman on the Huntingtown Board following his election in 2017. Smyth is running on a platform of continued investment in green infrastructure, concerned primarily with insufficient sewer systems in the Town and poor water quality. He also holds deep concerns about solid waste management on Long Island and the closing of the Brookhaven Landfill in 2024, and the lack of economically or environmentally sound methods of transporting ash waste off of Long Island. In response to this, he intends to implement measures to reduce solid waste by tonnage, increase recycling, and implement organic recycling streams.
When asked about the issue of affordable housing in his constituency, Smyth answered that he would shift from the current system of requiring 20% of new developments to be priced as affordable housing, to instead selling all units at market value and putting the difference in profit margins into an affordable housing trust fund in an effort to increase homeownership. He also intends to upgrade the sewage treatment plan and minimize new development that typically leads to an increase in the flow of wastewater.
Rebecca Sanin has spent her career fighting inequity in underserved communities and is deeply concerned with the intersection between climate justice and social and economic inequality. She believes education is fundamental in addressing climate change and should be utilized such as in the case of teaching people how to transition to and maintain modern IA septic systems that reduce pollutants in waterways. She also is concerned with poor housing being a social determinant of public health and intends to implement more affordable housing and building opportunities.
If elected, Sanin intends to prioritize environmental design to promote safety in her community, such as changing traffic flow to reduce congestion or implementing more sidewalks to promote walkability. She also supports the federal Build Back Better agenda and believes that economic development depends on good jobs, fair pay, and community benefits. She further intends to incentivize Town fleets to reduce emissions and introduce more electric vehicles into her community.
Eugene Cook is a small business owner and has been a Councilman for the past 10 years in the Town of Huntington. As Councilman, he has fought overdevelopment in his municipality and takes issue with the drastic increase in housing costs that make homeownership much more difficult than in past decades. He greatly values communication with his constituents when making decisions for the Town, and especially prioritizes listening to the needs of small business owners, particularly during COVID times, as a small business owner himself.
If elected, Cook intends to mandate all homes with over 50% reconstruction to install new IA septic systems and implement grants to have them installed throughout the Town. He also hopes to convert Town buildings to natural gas to increase renewable energy usage and convert the Town’s fleet to all-electric vehicles.
Thank you to our partners and panelists: Adrienne Esposito from Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Eric Alexander from Vision Long Island, and Mariah Dignan from Climate Jobs NY. Early voting is held from October 23 to October 31, and election day takes place on November 2nd.
Submitted by Michaela Stones
On October 5th, 2021, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) held a candidate forum for New York Council District 32, which is a coastal district and climate frontline community. It centers around Jamaica Bay, Ozone Park, and the western half of the Rockaways and is currently occupied by Council Member Eric Ulrich. This forum was held on zoom in preparation for the November 2nd general election. The forum featured Democratic nominee Felicia Singh and Republican nominee Joann Ariola, and was moderated by NYLCV NYC Chapter Board Member Karen Mintzer.
Felicia Singh is a lifelong resident of Ozone Park, a teacher, and the daughter of two working-class immigrants. She holds experience as a former Peace Corps volunteer, Vice President of Our Neighbors Civic Association of Ozone Park, and as a member of both the Assembly District 23 Country Committee and South East Queens Complete Count Committee. Singh is running on a platform that centers environmental racism and intersectionality in fighting the climate crisis and believes in the importance of amplifying community voices and involving local residents in climate policy discussions and decisions. She also holds deep concerns about “The Hole”, a section of her district where few people have proper sewer systems and is a place that is chronically ignored by civic leaders and elected officials.
When asked about the importance of education in combatting the climate crisis, Singh emphasized the need for a climate curriculum that is intersectional and built into classes from gym to science. She also values education as a whole in her community, which she believes to be necessary for increasing electric vehicle ownership and implementing a more universal composting system where people take personal responsibility in helping climate crisis mitigation. Singh further believes in the importance of taking care of the working class, such as protecting taxi drivers in the Central Business District Tolling Program proposal that would help to mitigate congestion but burden those made to pay congestion fees to fund the MTA.
Joann Ariola is the president of the Howard Beach Lindenwood Civic Association and a member of Community Board 10, and holds experience working with two mayors and members of the NYC Council. She also has been involved in hundreds of cleanups throughout her district and is an appointed member of the NYS Rising Committee where she works on projects to develop climate resiliency in her community. She strongly supports increasing funding for public parks and green spaces and has worked to make parks more accessible and safe for all such as installing swings for children with disabilities.
When asked about the sewage system in her district, Ariola spoke about how in her district, sewer lines are shared between stores and households, causing increased flooding particularly during storms such as the recent Hurricane Ida. She intends to increase sewer maintenance and alleviate any sewage backup to mitigate household flooding. She also is in favor of increasing beautification efforts in public parks, and the new Rails to Trails proposal that would ensure safer cycling throughout the district and easier access to forests and green space. When asked about accessibility to public transport, Ariola discussed how she worked to make two stations in her district accessible and intends to do so for all remaining public transport stations that are currently inaccessible.
Thank you to our partners: the Waterfront Alliance, the Rise to Resilience Coalition, and the Regional Plan Association. Early voting is held from October 23 to October 31, and election day takes place on November 2nd.
_____________________
Submitted by Michaela Stones
On June 29th, 2021 NYLCVEF hosted a virtual public forum along with Suez, a New York water service company to discuss per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe began by introducing the topic of water contamination, specifically regarding PFAS. To combat contamination in NY, the Drinking Water Advisory Council lowered advisory levels to 10 parts per trillion, a limit below the EPA standards. The panel discussed the properties of PFAS, sources of PFAS, research and regulations, and remediation efforts.
If you would like to watch the webinar recording, please click here.
Dr. Peter Grevatt, the CEO of The Water Research Foundation, explained that there are around 5,000 PFAS chemicals, which are man-made compounds that have been around for many decades and are difficult to break down because of their strong carbon-bonded chains. Invented in the 1930s, PFAS uses have grown from non-stick coatings to shampoos, paints, floor polishes, stain-resistant products, and firefighting foam. Further research projects related to PFAS and contamination conducted by The Water Research Foundation include how PFAS behaves in the environment, how long they last, where they go, and how to remove them.
Tracy Mehan, Executive Director of Government Affairs at the American Water Works Association (AWWA) introduced “legacy compounds” of which there are two, PFOA and PFOS. These compounds cause health risks when ingested and have been increasingly found in drinking water. Mehan stressed that agencies and water utilities need to know where to focus their monitoring resources to understand the risk in their source waters and where these PFAS substances have been produced and at what volumes. Additionally, he underlined the importance of the EPA to use existing tools to moderate and address PFAS. AWWA wants to see greater reliance and focus on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which gives data gathering authority for agencies to garner more information from the manufacturing sector about the number of PFAS compounds that have been developed and at what quantities they’re produced, as well as where they’re produced. The Clean Water Act would also help strategically and proactively achieve source water protection, and AWWA has been urging EPA to deploy regulations under the Act. AWWA also suggests the EPA release a report on the location of PFAS production, import, processing, and use, and update it every two years based on data collected through the TSCA.
Sean Mahar, Chief of Staff for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, focused on Rockland County water quality and New York’s emerging contaminants response. Recent actions taken to curb contaminant levels in NYS include introducing MCLs, or maximum contaminant levels, and DEC’s launch of an investigation into potential, existing, and legacy Superfund sites and inactive landfills for PFAS chemicals. NYSDEC conducted this by researching places that PFAS compounds have been found, which include airports, military bases, fire training centers, major oil facilities, manufacturers, and landfills. They’ve been sampling groundwater to address any public exposure to contamination. So far, landfill sites tested for PFAS have not been identified as the source of drinking water contamination. Moving forward, Maher outlined additional steps of investigating other potential PFAS sites and continuing efforts to understand PFAS behavior and contamination.
Dan Shapley, co-director of Riverkeeper’s Science and Patrol Program, outlined the programs, highlighting its goal of protecting water sources, regulating other contaminants that aren’t PFAS, and utilizing varying levels of government to come about change. Shapley lamented the slow regulation rates and unregulated contaminant levels on a nationwide and statewide scale, citing a global increase in chemical use in recent years as the reason for the spike. Correlated health risks include fertility decline, auto-immune and thyroid diseases, cancer, and more. The “chemical iceberg” breaks down as follows: PFAS are only 2.5% of chemicals, only 0.3% of PFAS are testable, and only 6.5% of those are regulated. He concluded that because of PFAS persistence, toxicity, an affinity for water, and ubiquity, they should be banned from non-essential purposes and regulated strongly. The Rockland Water Coalition encourages Suez to publish their plan to treat water sources exceeding NYS standards and treat the affected water bodies and urges the Department of Health and EPA to regulate PFAS as a class of chemicals and to enforce other government and non-government measures to ban non-essential uses and provide testing services.
Carol Walczyk, Vice President of Water Quality and Compliance for the Regulated Utility Division of Suez, explained that Suez collects water samples quarterly to test for PFAS chemicals. When they are detected, more samples are tested to determine whether there were contamination issues. Walczyk echoes that they are difficult to get rid of because of their strong carbon bonds and because PFAS is found in a multitude of everyday products. There are technologies that exist to remediate PFAS, some of which are preferred by NYS, however, Suez needs to do a pilot study to make sure the technology would be effective. Walczyk mentioned that Suez services multiple states with varying maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which makes standardizing an action plan difficult. Finally, it was emphasized that Suez works collaboratively to continue research and mitigation efforts as well as testing for and removing PFAS from currently contaminated areas.
In the concluding Q&A session, accountability and compensation were discussed. Mahar spoke about suing production companies of firefighting foam in order to financially gain back what has been spent on PFAS testing and removal processes. Walczyk spoke about the conflicts that come about between national, state, and local governments trying to regulate contamination and alert the public of the current risk level. Additionally, she explained that the United States is a few years ahead of regulation around the world (maybe because the US has used more, but the EU recently implemented an advisory level.) Mehan also reaffirmed the concerns that regulation will be challenging because of the many different types of PFAS. Finally, panelists discussed the urgent needs of PFAS testing and research.
Primary Election Day is June 22nd. The best way to advocate for the environment is to make sure you cast your ballot. Check here for information on deadlines and locations.
This year, voters in NYC will have the opportunity to participate in ranked-choice voting. That means instead of just picking one candidate for any given position, you will rank up to your top five choices.
On Thursday, June 3rd, along with Good Old Lower East Side, the League of Women Voters of New York City, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, we hosted a virtual event on Ranked Choice Voting. This year, numerous elected offices are on the ballot. Furthermore, New York City recently adopted a Ranked Choice Voting system, which will be used for the first time in a major election this primary day. The event discussed how to fill in your ballot, how your responses are used to elect the winners, how candidates are using the systems while campaigning, and why the system was enacted in the first place.
If you would like to view the webinar recording, please click here.
Christopher Casey is the Director of Voter Engagement at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. He leads the organization’s political and electoral programming. He began by introducing WE ACT, which was founded in 1988 to build healthy communities by ensuring that historically marginalized groups meaningfully participate in the creation of equitable environmental policies and practices. He then provided some examples of environmental racism, the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color, and environmental justice, the movement to address environmental racism and prevent inequitable exposure to environmental hazards.
He also introduced the term climate justice, the movement to address the climate crisis in an equitable manner. “A just transition” is a term used to refer to a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy that does not leave communities of color behind. He said that ranked choice voting was, in a word, “power,” describing how the previous system often forced voters to choose the lesser of two evils. Ranked choice voting will increase the power of marginalized communities by broadening the number and diversity of candidates, causing more candidates to discuss issues often ignored on the debate stage (i.e. not education, jobs, and crime), and effectuating strategic voting (allowing groups who support different top candidates but have similar views on other candidates to work together).
Click here to start the webinar recording at Christopher’s remarks.
Gianni Rodriguez is the Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Organizer at Good Old Lower East Side, which has fought to keep the people of the Lower East Side in their homes and community since 1977. They are a people-powered housing, environmental, and racial justice organization reaching over 80,000 people during the COVID-19 pandemic. She then cited the importance of flood protection and stormwater management to her community, citing the community’s suffering during and after Superstorm Sandy. She also mentioned extreme heat, air pollution, and waste mismanagement as other important environmental issues. Rodriguez stressed the importance of electing officials who will address these problems and mentioned the lack of confidence in the electoral process among members of her community. She’s hopeful that the new ranked choice voting system will encourage more New Yorkers to vote.
Click here to start the webinar recording at Gianni’s remarks.
Dianne Burrows is a former public school teacher who currently serves as Co-President of the League of Women Voters of New York City. The LWV educates and engages New Yorkers to be informed voters, and advocates and lobbies for legislation to improve the quality of life and ensure an open and democratic process in NYC. Burrows gave a presentation based on Adrienne Kivelson’s book What Makes New York City Run? which she titled “Who Makes NYC Run?” Her presentation discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, Borough President, City Council, and District Attorney. The first three of these officials are elected citywide, while the remaining three are held in boroughwide elections.
The mayor appoints the heads of most agencies without needing city council approval, signs or vetoes any bill passed by the city council, creates and proposes the city budget to the council, and develops a long-term strategic plan for the city. The mayor can also create or abolish city agencies. The comptroller is elected to be independent of the mayor and public advocate. The comptroller also recommends fiscal policies and financial transactions for the city, conducts audits, and submits advice to the mayor and city council on the financial condition of the city. The audit process is required annually and must be transparent. It is accessible at www.checkbooknyc.com. The Public Advocate (PA) is first in the mayoral line of succession. The PA advocates for the public by monitoring, investigating, and responding to all citizen complaints. Public hearings on the performance and legality of city agencies may be held by the public advocate, who also appoints one member to the City Planning Commission. The Landlord Watchlist is an example of something the PA has done.
Borough-wide elected officials consist of 5 borough presidents, 51 city council members, and 5 district attorneys. They are only elected by the constituents in their borough. The city council proposes and votes on all local laws, and has sole jurisdiction over the passage of the city budget. They also review land use matters, oversee all city programs and agencies, and set the real estate tax rate. The council can also levy other taxes with the approval of the state legislature. An important function of the city council is to implement “participatory budgeting,” which encourages citizens to participate in the budget-making process. Borough presidents are the chief executive officers for their borough. They must be consulted by the mayor and city council on any budget expenditures for their borough, are allowed to propose legislation and budgetary expenditures to the city council and mayor, and allocate discretionary spending for their borough. Borough presidents also review all land-use decisions affecting their borough, coordinate citizen complaints, and chair a board of council members and community board members in their borough.
Burrows then discussed the city’s community boards, which are advisory only but hold a lot of power. People can serve by filling out an application on their borough president’s website. She also discussed the LWV’s Vote411 tool, which allows voters to check where candidates stand on various issues. Burrows also discussed the limits to elected officials’ power. Offices are subject to term limits, with two four-year terms being the maximum allowed. The federal government also limits what the city can do, through federal funds which are allocated for specific purposes, as well as through federal laws and mandates. The state of New York restricts the city government by needing to approve all taxes (except the real estate tax). The State also controls transit and rent control, implements laws, and helps fund the city’s schools. Additionally, the city will often borrow money from the state. Finally, quasi-independent agencies such as NYC Health and Hospitals, NYCHA, and the Housing Development Corp make decisions without the direct approval of the city government.
Click here to start the webinar recording at “Who Makes NYC Run?”
Ranked choice voting increases power for voters. Burrows says that we constantly rank our choices in our lives, giving the example of ranking toppings when going out for pizza with friends. Burrows then delved into the process of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). In most elections, voters can only choose one candidate, while RCV allows you to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. RCV was approved for NYC in a 2019 election and will be implemented by the city for primary and special local elections in 2021. These include city-wide elections (for the mayor, PA, and comptroller), and borough-wide elections (for the borough president and city council). RCV will not be implemented for the elections of the DA and judges. To use RCV, rank up to five candidates in order of your preference. Rank your favorite candidate first, your second favorite candidate second, and so on. Only rank candidates who you feel can do the job and you can live with as your elected official, as you do not have to rank five candidates. You cannot rank any candidate more than once, and cannot give multiple candidates the same ranking. If you don’t rank anyone for your 1st-4th choices but rank someone 5th, that person will be your first choice candidate. Additionally, if you rank candidates with choices 1-3 and 5, but do not rank anyone fourth (miss a rank), then your fifth choice candidate will become your fourth choice.
Ranked choice ballots have a different counting process as well. If any candidate receives more than 50% of first-place votes, they win the election. If no candidate earns more than 50% of the first-choice votes, counting will continue in rounds. The candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes will be eliminated, and each of their voter’s votes will be allocated to their second-choice candidate. Once those votes are allocated, the remaining candidate with the lowest percentage of votes will be eliminated, and their votes will be redistributed according to their voters’ next highest-ranked candidates. The process will repeat until there are only two candidates left. Vote counting may take longer than traditional elections since there may be multiple rounds. The results for every election will be posted on vote.nyc.
In November, voters will vote on no-excuse absentee voting and same-day voter registration.
Click here to start the recording at the presentation on RCV.
A Q&A session followed the presentations. Regarding what happens if a voter makes a mistake on their ballot (i.e. filling the same candidate in twice, filling in two candidates for the same choice), Burrows said that the machine would flag the submission and prompt the voter with a choice of filling out a new ballot or submitting anyway. If the second ballot also has an issue, the voter will get one final chance on a third ballot. Poll workers will distribute cards to voters on how to correctly fill in their ballot. Regarding incorrect absentee ballots, Burrows replied that only the oath envelope can be ‘cured’ in absentee voting since the ballot does not have a name on it. Therefore, incorrect votes will not be corrected when voting absentee. Each vote can only count towards one candidate at a time. You can still write in a candidate in ranked choice voting (for any choice). RCV was adopted because it gives people more of a voice in who their elected officials are. RCV elections are audited, and results after every round are displayed at the end of the election. Results of the election may take a couple of weeks. RCV will save the city money by allowing the city to avoid spending on runoff elections. Rodriguez said it is paramount that we vote for candidates that can represent us, and that climate and environmental justice are life-saving policies for her community. She also said she feels that RCV will encourage more people who care about environmental justice issues to vote, citing the appeal of having your vote count even after your first-choice candidate is eliminated. Later, Rodriguez said that advocacy and outreach have helped us reach more people than ever before, but added that a lot more on-the-ground outreach is needed. Burrows said that several municipalities around the Bay Area, as well as the state of Maine, have adopted RCV. Rodriguez said that a lot of education and trust-building must be done to quell voters’ cynicism. Burrows said that if you do not like a candidate, do not rank that candidate.
Click here to start the webinar at the audience Q&A.
We thank our event partners North Brooklyn Neighbors and South Bronx Unite.
On May 25th, together with Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we held a webinar on the opportunities and challenges of decarbonizing the manufacturing sector, which is the third-largest contributor to emissions nationally. This webinar was the fifth in our series on Implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. View the recording here.
Our President Julie Tighe kicked off the forum by discussing the CLCPA and the state’s clean energy goals. She then talked specifically about the manufacturing sector, which is the third largest contributor to emissions nationally. Tighe stressed the need for clean energy technologies in the sector.
A panel of experts was moderated by Dr. Julio Friedmann, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Global Clean Energy Policy at Columbia University. Friedmann started by underscoring the urgency of climate change. He said that we need to take action, but that there are substantial challenges in the manufacturing sector, including technology, cost, and equity limitations. Friedmann later added that decarbonization efforts are going on throughout the country and world, such as incentives and tariffs. Later in the forum, he spoke to specific technologies (e.g., biofuels) that are being discussed to help decarbonize the manufacturing sector. Central and Upstate New York have an incredible density of skilled labor, added Friedmann.
Heather Briccetti is the President and CEO of the Business Council of New York State. She said that we should care about manufacturing because it is critical to the economy and a provider of quality jobs. She said one challenge the sector faces is that not every process can be made electric, such as the making of glass (which requires heat). She also cited the cost of replacing long-term equipment. Briccetti says that one of the big challenges of the CLCPA is the uncertainty of the costs of decarbonizing. Uncertainty, she says, may cause companies to relocate. New York needs the rest of the country and world to decarbonize with it, to keep the state competitive.
She wants the state to buy its paper exclusively from New York paper manufacturers. Briccetti also said that we need to have clear market signals and certainty on the cost front. She said that reducing emissions will have an impact on public health, especially in disadvantaged communities. Green jobs, economic development, and increased local tax revenue will all be effects of a green economy. However, she also mentioned that manufacturers leaving the state would create more disadvantaged communities. She feels that innovation and infrastructure are critical, and that we need to use our assets to develop innovative energy solutions. Briccetti also feels that we should encourage those who develop new technologies to stay in New York.
Luke Clemente is the Managing Director at Clemente Materials and Clemente Group, which supplies a variety of products including concrete, asphalt, sand, gravel, and topsoil. He said that getting the human capital to support carbon neutral infrastructure is a challenge, but said that they look at things like replacing diesel with natural gas as a fuel source. They also recently replaced a diesel excavator with an electric dredge. He says that in his industry, recycling can be advantageous, citing glass and asphalt. Clemente said that all businesses need to be focused on adaptation, adding that manufacturing is what brings wealth to the state. He also mentioned that there should be a partnership between companies, utilities, and governments.
Clemente later said that he sees the potential for green jobs, since electrification will require a lot of people with technical skills. However, he says that finding people with these skills is challenging. Clemente says that his company, which is not a technology company, relies on others for innovation but is motivated by the goal of becoming less carbon intensive.
Matt Roberts is the Founder and Co-owner of Sherrill Manufacturing, the only stainless-steel flatware manufacturer left in the US. He said that manufacturing provides an opportunity for people who do not wish to attend college to become a part of the economy. He cited the cost of electric heating as a challenge, but said that his company makes a conscious effort to buy local. Roberts said that they do a lot of recycling, and that 85% of their stainless steel they purchase is already recycled. His company’s location allows it to get electricity from Niagara Falls. They also employ an energy-saving infrared heating system.
His company’s largest competition is manufacturing companies in China, Indonesia, India, and Vietnam. His biggest fear is that if the rest of the world does not decarbonize with New York, companies will either need to move to other states to compete or will be unable to compete. Companies will move to places which do not care about the environment, and emissions will increase. Roberts feels that the state needs to recognize that manufacturers are very important, and that we need a diverse supply of products from a global standpoint. He also mentioned the European Union’s tariff to incentivize low carbon products. He suggested that New York not only implement new green technologies, but become the world epicenter for these technologies, drawing people to the state.
Randy Wolken is the President and CEO of the Manufacturers Association of New York. He said that manufacturing is critical in New York State, and that decarbonizing the sector while remaining competitive with manufacturers in India and China is a challenge. However, based on past experience, he believes that the sector is up to the challenge. He says that a clean energy transition in the manufacturing sector will look like previous clean energy transitions, and that the manufacturing sector has great abilities to confront challenges and use state of the art manufacturing techniques. He also said that there are a lot of great technologies in the pipeline.
Wolken added that many companies are concerned about the environment, but do not want to lose their competitive opportunities. Wolken emphasized that there are going to be significant opportunities for green jobs in the state, and that New York can be a leader in decarbonizing the manufacturing sector. NYSERDA, he said, is a wonderful resource which other states do not have. Wolken stated that we should focus on the process of decarbonization instead of just the technology involved. He later said that we need to tap into our education system to prepare people to work with new green technologies, and mentioned the challenge of installing infrastructure.
John Williams is the Vice President for Policy and Regulatory Affairs at NYSERDA. Williams said that because the manufacturing sector is so varied, developing clean technology for the sector will be a challenge. He also stressed the need for advancements at the national and international level. He added that we need to be thinking about the entire timescale between now and 2050, but that between 2020 and 2030, manufacturers should focus on energy efficiency. Between 2030 and 2050, we need advanced technology options (such as carbon capture) to come into play, says Williams. He also mentioned that there will be emergent technologies and alternative sources of energy which can be used to help decarbonize the manufacturing sector in the future.
According to Williams, we can prevent “leakage,” or companies leaving NY State, by focusing on near-term decarbonization solutions, such as energy-efficiency. He also mentioned NYSERDA’s TechFlex program, an audit that attempts to identify potential opportunities for energy efficiency in a facility. The goal of the program is to help companies make advantageous decisions in the short and long term future. He also said that New York is investigating how it can work with other states to develop a low-carbon product environment. The state is also planning on tracking the carbon footprint of its own procurements. NYSERDA has recently completed a study on what the power grid can look like to meet the 70% renewable electricity goal. Williams says that the goal is to decarbonize facilities in low-income communities without those communities losing jobs. Part of this work will be creating career pathways which allow individuals to take part in apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs. While NYSERDA focuses on energy, Williams stressed that New York should also look far beyond that.
An audience Q&A session followed the forum. Dr. Friedmann started by mentioning that the reliability of the grid is being called into question with the retirement of nuclear and peaker plants. He also mentioned that while the price of renewables is decreasing, power prices are on the rise. Williams said that we need to make sure we heed the environmental outcomes we know are necessary. He added that we need to be managing costs to ratepayers while we are looking for economies of scale. Wolken said that there is no “silver bullet,” but that the goal is to pilot technology before scaling it to reduce costs. The approach should be a combination of public, private, and nonprofit.
In closing, Briccetti said that we need to value the contributions made by manufacturers, leverage the education and energy assets we have, and rethink policies which add costs to electricity unrelated to reliability. Matt said that over the last 15 months, US citizens have understood the importance of manufacturing. He said that if we transition the right way, we will become a magnet which benefits manufacturers and functions as a showcase for the rest of the world. Luke said he was encouraged by the discussion and talked about the need to stay focused on the right balance between a decarbonized and competitive future.
On April 21, together with Citizens Campaign for the Environment, we held an event on Advancing Wind and Protecting Wildlife. The event focused on how offshore wind energy projects can be built without causing any adverse effects on the neighboring wildlife. It was held in response to frequently asked questions from the public and featured several expert speakers. View the slideshows here and here.
Adrienne Esposito, the Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, kicked off the session by saying that she thinks wildlife is critical when talking about offshore wind. NYLCV President Julie Tighe then spoke to the state’s commitment to bring 9 gigawatts of offshore wind energy to shore by 2035. Ongoing and planned projects include the Southfork Wind Farm (132 megawatts), Sunrise Wind Farm (880 MW), Empire Wind 1 (816 MW), Empire Wind 2 (1260 MW), and Beacon Wind (1230 MW). At the federal level, President Biden released a comprehensive plan to jumpstart offshore wind, including a nationwide goal of 30 gigawatts by 2030, creating 80,000 jobs. Tighe added that we want to make sure we are getting these wind projects done in a way that does not negatively impact wildlife.
Howard Rosenbaum is the Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Ocean Giants Program. At the event, he talked about the prevalence of the different species of whales present in the State’s waters, including Humpback, Fin, Blue, Sei, and Minke Whales. Of particular note is the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. He also mentioned that there are large concentrations of acoustically-sensitive small cetaceans such as beaked whales. He then talked about the threat of ocean noise pollution to whale species that rely on sound. According to Rosenbaum, elevated noise levels can negatively impact whales by leading to behavioral disturbance, masking vital communication, and even causing physiological damage. As a result, it is important to consider the cumulative impacts of the noise before installing any offshore wind projects. Rosenbaum then played a video showing whales in the city and illustrating how genetic information is collected from them. Whales, he said, migrate through New York waters during the spring and fall. He then gave an example of how we can protect whales: there were recently real-time acoustic detections of the North Atlantic Right Whale in the New York Bight. This triggered a “Right Whale Slow Zone” Southeast of the New York City area to protect those whales.
Drew Carey, CEO of INSPIRE Environmental, is a marine scientist with over 30 years of experience in the assessment of the seafloor. He talked about his experience from working with the Block Island Wind Farm, a Rhode Island offshore wind project. His presentation focused on the effects of offshore wind projects on local fish populations. He began by talking about a phenomenon known as the artificial reef effect. An introduction of a hard surface on the ocean floor allows the growth of organisms, almost immediately attracting fish seeking food and refuge to the structure. This creates a small “island of biodiversity.” Carey then talked specifically about several studies conducted at the Block Island Wind Farm. Overall, the studies found that artificial reef effects are local and may take 10 years to fully develop. Additionally, there was no significant change in fish populations between the turbine and no turbine periods, while changes in abundance across the survey areas were consistent with regional trends. The first study he mentioned was a Demersal Trawl Survey, conducted on a commercial trawler using ordinary fishing gear and calibrated to be consistent with other studies in the area. Samples were collected every month for seven years (two years before construction, two during construction, and three after construction). In total, 750,000 fish and invertebrates were collected. The findings showed a temporal change consistent with the region in populations of Northern Sea Robin and Atlantic Herring. However, Black Sea Bass were attracted to the structure and their population increased enormously. Additionally, the population of Blue Mussels increased because of the introduction of an intertidal region. As a result, blue mussels became included in fish diets. The Atlantic Cod population also exhibited a large increase. A Lobster Trap Survey was also conducted over the same time period, but only during the months of May through October each year. Over seven years, 12,037 traps were sampled with 44,932 lobsters collected. The lobster population increased during construction and then declined afterward. Other main takeaways were that study designs should balance the interests of scientists and the fishing community and that they should be site-specific. Additionally, it is important to know what is and what is not an ecologically meaningful difference. Regional data is necessary to properly interpret site-specific data, and regional funding and cooperation would help leverage efforts.
Catherine Bowes, Program Director of Offshore Wind Energy at the National Wildlife Federation, gave a presentation focused on the policy aspects of protecting wildlife while advancing offshore wind. She started her presentation by mentioning how on March 21, the US Secretaries of the Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Transportation announced a sweeping national commitment to offshore wind power which includes achieving a 30-gigawatt national goal by 2030 while protecting biodiversity. The commitment also includes federal funding for port infrastructure, loan guarantees, and research, as well as a plan to advance the stalled offshore wind leasing and permitting process in the Atlantic. For any offshore wind project, the plan should be guided by the best available scientific data, expert and stakeholder engagement, current ocean planning efforts, and comprehensive monitoring. Environmental protection must be in place at all stages of development: during siting (avoid locating projects in sensitive, critical wildlife habitat areas), construction (adjust timing and method of survey and construction activities to protect wildlife), operations and maintenance (employ proven wildlife impact reduction strategies), and decommissioning (make sure infrastructure is removed correctly). Bowes emphasized how it is everybody’s job to make sure offshore wind projects are done responsibly. The federal government should conduct science-based reviews of all leasing and project permitting decisions, state governments should offer a procurement process that requires or incentivizes responsible development, and industry should commit to responsible development practices. Additionally, federal governments, state governments, and industry should provide ongoing, robust stakeholder outreach and engagement, and advance research, while NGOs and other stakeholders should engage early and often. Bowes also said that there are signs of hope: new federal leadership, state leadership, collaboration, industry leadership (Right Whale agreements, not building turbines within 15 miles of the New Jersey shore), and unity (an April statement being signed by over 100 leaders).
The event concluded with a question-and-answer session. In response to a question about why we should pursue offshore wind projects if there are whales in New York, Julie Tighe explained that whales can co-exist with wind turbines and that offshore wind is one of our few options for clean energy. Rosenbaum added that we have to put the best practices in place and use the best available science to protect these animals while we still have them, while Esposito said that we will be using floating turbines, especially in deep water areas. In response to a question about whether complex bases for wind turbines would act better as artificial reefs, Drew said that the Block Island Wind Farm is doing a study with the Nature Conservancy considering how to improve the nature of the base of turbines. Responding to an inquiry about whether benefits extended across socio-economic divides, Bowes said that it is a really important question that a lot of people are thinking about, and Rosenbaum said that they will make sure that job and engagement opportunities for various socio-economic backgrounds are available.
On January 14, together with Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we held an event focused on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act as it pertains to New York’s natural resources. We convened two panels of experts to discuss how protecting nature can help with climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as the various techniques farms can employ to fight climate change. A recording of the event can be watched here.
During the forum, the audience had an opportunity to ask questions, although we weren’t able to answer all of them during our Q&A session. Event panelists Samantha Levy, New York Policy Manager for the American Farmland Trust; Jenifer Wightman, a research specialist at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; and John Macauley of Macauley Farms in Livingston County, NY have responded to some unanswered questions from the forum.
Lynda asked: “Do we have simultaneous data re biodiversity value alongside carbon?”
Jenifer responded that “One very direct way of looking at biodiversity is preventing lands from being developed. This reduces road development and travel, it maintains corridors for wildlife, and increases diversity. Yes, we should always be looking at biodiversity, but the issue of climate is so large, that it will radically change the landscape (and its inhabitants). So it is a yes/and agenda – in general we need more funding for research to ensure multiple ecosystem services are maintained and/or improved, carbon and diversity being but 2.”
Sheree asked: How does payment to landowners for carbon sequestration tie into the market?
Samantha responded that “Currently all we have are voluntary markets, so any widespread public payments would be additive and likely help to unlock potential.”
Sheree also said: “Can the small role of Carbon sequestration in agriculture be reconsidered? Regenerative Ag has the potential to sequester huge amounts of CO2. It also reduces the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. And can increase the amount of local meat and dairy, reducing transportation and GHG emissions from nonlocal meat and dairy, and potentially eliminate CFOs.”
Samantha replied: “Agreed, and we are working hard to ensure this is considered in the state's climate plan through the panels and working groups”
Ellen asked: “How do you balance/evaluate a proposed solar array that would be located in forest and require cutting down trees.” (sic)
Jenifer responded: “In principle, we want to keep forest as forest to maintain and improve their carbon pool (and for some land owners, product) capacity. Therefore, we should look to site solar on idle or underutilized lands and we should consider improving the grid to connect these idle (unforested) lands to grid. In general, we should aspire to keep forest as forest, ag as ag, and activate underutilized lands for solar. We estimate ~1.7 million acres of idle land in NYS.”
Bill asked: “If I owned a failing agricultural operation in the Hudson Valley, would the GHG value be greater if I reforested it or if I built a solar farm?”
Jenifer replied: “Great question. First, why is the ag operation failing? What does this mean about your underlying soils/topography or types of crops/animals or business model? How much area is it? Are you looking to find a profitable alternative? Or are you looking at maximizing GHG mitigation? Are you close to 3-phase power lines (necessary for solar, can be expensive to connect if not nearby)? What kind of trees would you like to grow (for bioenergy or long lived wood products)? Do you have lots of deer (afforestation can be difficult to get started and it will take decades to see the result – which is part of why it is such a great endeavor for climate, but difficult financially in the near term with current policies – which may change quickly to support afforestation but that is not yet clear)? Both solar and afforestation take effort and I would start by trying to keep the ag-land as ag land, and then start accumulating details about whether or not solar or woodlands are well suited. Every location has unique characteristics – but agriculture, solar and forest are all fantastic land uses. Just don’t forget how much time it took your forefathers to remove tree stumps from that ag soil before you start planting more! That is an embodied gift of ag land (rock and root clearing – don’t underestimate its value!).”
Kyle asked a series of questions about solar and agriculture, which were answered by Samantha:
“Can you comment on agri-voltaics?”
“This is a newer, yet interesting approach that the current renewable market in NY doesn't support the growth of. We need research in NYS and proof of concept, and then perhaps we might be able to better incentivize agri-voltaics more diverse than just sheep grazing or pollinators habitat.”
“Can you comment on the use of regenerative solar and any benifits on agriculture?”
“I'm not sure what regenerative solar is”
“Do you have any comments on the use of renewables in New York to offset GHG emissions? In particular, utility scale solar projects on areas that are already open fields/deforested?”
“Renewables are not exactly being used to offset emissions, but rather to reduce GHG emissions out of the gate. Developers need to site these projects near transmission, and so that and willing landowners are main drivers for siting decisions, not the value of the land they are placed on. We would like to see the value of the land considered more readily in siting decisions so that in our quest for energy security, we do not let market forces compromise our food security or farm viability”
“Could you please comment on the conflict between utility scale solar facilities and agricultural land with the environment? What are some major issues and what can be done to allow the deployment of solar in a sustainable manner with respect to farming?”
“The answer is smart solar siting. I recommend referring to a blog I wrote last year for more information: https://farmland.org/working-together-to-address-climate-change-while-keeping-land-in-farming/”
Caroline asked: “What will the Best Farmlands map look like in 2050 assuming not catastrophic warming, but not really meeting the stated goals....??”
Samantha answered: “AFT's next iteration of the Farms Under Threat report will seek to answer these questions. Look out for it!”
Caroline added: “That is, will there be any increase in very farmable land in the northern part of the state, esp the northeastern part of the state, where we could a little more easily start some of these best practices, conservation easements, and so on?”
Samantha replied: “In theory yes, but the impacts of climate change on soils are complex. This may be a better question for researchers at Cornell, or refer to the state's Clime-Aid (not spelled right) report”
Bernie asked: “I am wondering whether, in general, farmer are open to adopting no-till farming or do they need persuasion. For example, are John Macauley's neighbor farmers doing no-till?”
John responded: “In general farmer are always looking to save time and money, but as of adopting no-till some struggle to fully adopt the practice. With no-till you have to think more than just going out and doning conventional. For example what to do with weeds, conventional farmer would just go out and do tillage to fix the problem and chemical termination, but a no-till/ cover crop farmer would say what can I grow for a cover crop suppress the weeds and grow plants that either winter kill or one thats grow in spring that need crimping or chemical termination.”
Bernie also said: “Maybe John can opine on whether no-till farming is more profitable?”
John replied: “No-till farming is still profitable and for me is more profitable than conventional farming we were doing before.”
Mary asked: “A question for John Macauley -- thanks for a great presentation. I remain unclear about whether increased pesticide/herbicide use is needed with no-till. I have heard both yes and no. Can you talk about that?”
John responded: “When it comes to more herbicide use, we are using the same abount as i would if I was conventionaling tilling. With the use of cover crops our herbicide use has been a little reduced in those fields. As for pesticide I look and think before appling, I dont like to handle them if I dont need to. I also look to see if ther is truly a need, past the thresholds level, is there beneficials inscect that are moving in that are taking on the pests (pesticides terminate benificials along with pests), and are the in just part of the field than I will just spray that part.”
Samantha added: “The programs John described are great Federal programs. The state also has a number of programs funded in the Environmental Protection Fund, such as the Agricultural non-point source pollution and abatement program and the Climate resilient farming grants program that assist farmers in adopting soil health practices”
Sheree asked: “How do the ag folks see grazing as part of carbon sequestration, and conversion of confined feeding operations as central to CH4 and nitrous oxide emissions,”
Jenifer replied: “I like to think of cows as a kind of food battery. They eat stored winter cellulose (with the help of their microbe collaborators in their gut) to provide milk and meat during or dormant growing season (winter). We can’t eat cellulose – so that symbiotic duo of cow and microbe – makes a valuable transformation of stored cellulose of hay/grains into delicious edibles. However, the composition of food and microbes in the gut is what makes that transformation more or less efficient. If it is less efficient, the system makes more enteric methane and less milk. If the system is more efficient, it produces more milk and less methane. In general, the US dairy and beef industry is quite efficient compared to rural grazing in developing countries where there isn’t supplemental feed to make the ideal gut composition. To be honest, I’m not convinced grazing is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than confined feeding operations where the diet is very closely monitored to maximize feedstuff. In general however, to answer your question most directly, given the potency of methane (in NYS its Global Warming Potential GWP, is 84x more potent than CO2), it is quite difficult to sequester carbon at a rate equivalent to the methane emitted from the cows gut. Additionally, soil and crop carbon is short-lived and fast cycling (compared to long-term carbon sequestered in a 100-yr tree that then builds a 100-yr house), in part bc that soil/crop carbon is like a checking account running the whole biological cycle. That is, existing grasslands are probably at a steady state of carbon (so unlikely any new sequestration there). Therefore, if I were a grazing farm, I would look to giving my herd daily well-designed supplemental rations to minimize the methane and maximize productivity.”
On Friday, February 26th, we hosted a webinar on extended producer responsibility (EPR). The forum focused on how extended producer responsibility legislation for packaging can help us achieve our waste reduction goals. The webinar featured presentations by several experts in waste and policy, followed by a Q&A session.
A recording of the forum can be accessed here.
NYLCV President Julie Tighe kicked off the webinar and made clear that although waste is often overlooked, it is New York’s fourth largest contributor to climate change. Annually, the state landfills six million tons of waste, while shipping another six million tons off to other states. She added that foreign countries are accepting less and less of our waste for recycling, while municipalities are cutting their recycling programs. However, Tighe said, it does not have to be this way, as we can pass legislation to ease the recycling burden on municipalities while encouraging manufacturers to adopt more sustainable practices.
The session then featured State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee and sponsor of the Extended Producer Responsibility bill. Kaminsky started by saying that EPR is used throughout the world, and pointed out some problems with the current system. He said that many items we place in recycling bins end up in landfills, while municipalities struggle to gather the funds necessary for recycling and upgrading outdated systems. Kaminsky then talked about how EPR legislation can help remedy the situation. Under EPR, producers would have to fund the recycling of their paper goods and packaging. The amount of money charged to the producer would depend on the quantity and sustainability of their products. These funds would go to municipalities, who could use them to fund and improve their recycling systems. Thus, the creation of a circular economy and an explosion of green jobs.
The first presentation was by Scott Cassel, who has been a key leader in the US product stewardship movement for the past twenty years. He is the founder and CEO of the Product Stewardship Institute. In 2019, the institute facilitated the development of a packaging EPR framework for the state, which formed the basis of Senator Kaminsky’s bill. Cassel began by explaining how our recycling system currently works. He said that the system is currently fragmented, with consumers paying producers for the product, and taxpayers paying the municipality, who in turn pays for the recycling. Under EPR legislation, the consumer pays the producer, who in turn pays municipalities and/or recyclers for recycling. EPR extends the responsibility of the producer past product design into end-of-life product management. The benefits of EPR include reduced taxpayer and ratepayer burden, increased recycling statewide, the creation of a network of accountability, and promoting sustainable product design. It also increases the likelihood that the things we place in the recycling bin end up actually being recycled instead of in a landfill.
Cassel said that although there are no EPR laws in place for packaging yet, there are 119 EPR laws and 10 state bottle bills across the country that have been passed. New York currently has EPR laws for paint, batteries, thermostats, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. New York is among nearly a dozen states introducing EPR laws for packaging and paper products. Packaging EPR laws have spread across the world, and have been in place across Europe for decades. The programs in British Columbia and Belgium have been especially successful. Cassel also mentioned the benefits we have observed nationwide from paint collection, including the recycling of 38 million gallons of paint, the creation of over 200 jobs, and savings of $200 million by taxpayers and local governments.
Adrienne Esposito is the co-founder and Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. She has served on numerous boards and advisory committees across the local, state, and federal levels, and is widely considered an expert on environmental issues. She emphasized how we have a solid waste management crisis and talked about where our garbage actually ends up. She presented Long Island as an example, where most waste goes to either incinerators on the island and a landfill in Brookhaven, or to upstate and out-of-state landfills. The Brookhaven landfill will close in 2024, while the upstate and out-of-state landfills are quickly filling up. We do not have a plan for where to put waste when these landfills fill up. She said that the most effective option is to reduce our waste in the first place. She also said that there are a multitude of environmental benefits from EPR legislation, including the reduction of trucking, greenhouse gases, and space used in landfills.
Andrew Radin is Director of Recycling and Waste Reduction for the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency, and has thirty years of experience in recycling and solid waste. He is also the Chair of the New York Product Stewardship Council. He began his presentation by talking about the aforementioned EPR legislation already implemented in the state. He spoke about the impact of these EPR bills, including the collection of 600 million pounds of e-waste since 2011, and New York City observing a 60% reduction in e-waste. He talked about the current challenges our country faces in recycling, including depressed markets, low material recovery rates, confusion among residents, and outdated technology. Statewide, 1.5 million tons are recycled annually, but at an $80 million cost. Additionally, 860,000 tons of recyclables end up in the trash annually. Inadequate funding has prevented municipalities from stepping up public education efforts and modernizing their recycling technology. The goal of EPR legislation is to both modernize the material recovery system and place the costs on the manufacturers who benefit from selling products. EPR legislation will lead to increased material recovery rates, green sector jobs, and infrastructure investment, while decreasing packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs for municipalities.
Tom Outerbridge has worked in recycling and composting since the 1980s. He has worked as General Manager for SIMS, which processes all curbside recycling collected by the DSNY, for the last 18 years. Additionally, he is on the New York Produce Stewardship Council. He emphasized the importance of EPR legislation, which has the potential to address over 40% of the residential waste stream. He also said that EPR laws in Canada are flexible and can be adjusted. He also mentioned how we have developed innovative ways to reduce waste, such as using ground up glass in cement. Outerbridge said that EPR can help with the recycling of polypropylene, which is currently expensive and fragmented. He also talked about how the paper recycling markets have collapsed, to the point where processors are charging municipalities for the paper waste they traditionally paid for. He then talked about how EPR is encouraging producers to develop more sustainable products, bringing up a French law requiring producers who use nonrecyclable plastic to pay more.
The presentations were followed by a Q&A session. During the session, Cassel said that EPR legislation will reduce the cost of recycling for tax- and ratepayers, as well as increasing the prevalence of sustainable packaging. He also said that municipalities will spend a set amount on recycling, rather than being uncertain of how much they need to allocate. Outerbridge said that the EPR bill will not change what consumers have to do for recycling, who can still use curbside collection. Esposito added that the current numbers system for plastics is not ideal. Cassel said that fees under the EPR will be based on the weight and the type of packaging material, which will encourage companies to use less and sustainable packaging. He said that reuse and source reduction are most important, but also mentioned that “pay as you throw” consumer responsibility legislation can be passed in conjunction with EPR bills.
Esposito said that producers will always put up a fight against producer responsibility legislation, but ultimately go along with, and sometimes benefit from, the new policies. Outerbridge added that packaging decisions are made from both cost and marketing standpoints. Cassel added that it is unfair to companies which use sustainable packaging to make them pay the same as every other company. He also said that producers know that EPR laws are coming, but have only wanted to engage recently due to political pressure. Esposito said that EPR benefits the climate through decreasing the amount of waste transported and the amount of fuel used. Outerbridge added that we can calculate the energy and water savings from recycled materials. Radin said that the EPA estimates that for every ton recycled, there is a 2.4 metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions. He said that this can become a 1 to 2 million metric ton reduction through the EPR bill’s public education efforts. Cassel stressed that the EPR is a key climate change strategy, saying that 29% of greenhouse gas emissions come from product manufacturing. If we recycle, we do not need to use the energy needed to mine as many materials. Kaminsky said that the newspaper industry is heavily opposing the bill, but said that the EPR bill has the most co-sponsors of any bill he has ever had except for the CLCPA. Kaminsky added that he is very optimistic of the bill’s passage if people work to increase public support for it. According to Radin, there are over 60,000 tons of newspapers and 40,000 tons of magazines recycled by municipalities annually, and the costs associated with the recycling process as it is now are not sustainable. Kaminsky added that the challenges in passing the bill are associated with its technical nature and the fact that most people do not think about recycling.
On January 14, 2021, together with Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we held the fourth virtual forum in our series on Implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. This roundtable focused on how protecting and managing New York’s Natural Resources can help us achieve the goal of net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statewide by the year 2050. The forum was divided into two panels, one focusing on the state’s forests and the other on the agricultural sector.
A recording of the forum is available here.
NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe kicked off the event, remarking on the state’s long history of protecting natural lands, dating back to the creation of Adirondack State Park. She also mentioned the importance of trees, which act as carbon sinks and help combat the “urban heat island” effect.
The first panel was moderated by Dr. Shahid Naeem, Chair of the Department of Biology at Columbia University. He mentioned the effect that forests have on the prevalence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, presenting a graph which illustrated how carbon dioxide levels rise in the winter and fall in the summer due to the increase in photosynthesis during that time. Carbon dioxide can accumulate in the atmosphere, the ocean, or the biosphere, but the latter is the only favorable carbon sink, said Dr. Naeem. He also emphasized the need to think of solutions which work on a global scale, but implement them on a local scale. According to Dr. Naeem, managing nature to mitigate and adapt to climate change is a multidimensional endeavor, involving social engagement, conservation-driven management, and use-driven management.
Sam Bishop’s work emphasizes social engagement. A board certified Master Arborist, Bishop serves as the Director of Urban Forestry and Education at Trees New York, a nonprofit whose mission is to plant, preserve, and protect New York City’s urban forests through education, active citizen participation, and advocacy. During the forum, he emphasized the use of trees to combat urban heat islands, areas where temperatures are higher than adjacent land due to land-use changes, including the use of heat-absorbing materials. Because of the shade they provide and a process called evapotranspiration which absorbs heat from the environment to evaporate water, trees are an important tool in fighting these hot patches. Bishop also mentioned the important role urban forests and street trees play in addressing environmental justice issues. During the Q&A portion of the forum, he said that upstate and urban forests are connected, with diseases and invasive species passing between them.
Jessica Ottney is the New York Policy Director at The Nature Conservancy. During the forum, she mentioned that most of New York’s forested land area is privately owned, with families accounting for 57% and corporations for another 14%. She then talked about the environmental benefits of these natural areas, which currently sequester a net of 26 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide annually. The goal is to increase that to 30 MMT by 2030 and 60 MMT across all land types by 2050. This can be achieved through work on a number of fronts, according to Ottney. We should continue to protect currently forested land, which is being done through research to map past, current, and potential future forest loss. Additionally, we can manage our forests more efficiently by having foresters help private landowners steward their forests in a way that maximizes the carbon they sequester. It is also important to address areas where regeneration status is threatened by deer, invasive species, and development. Ottley also stressed the need to protect environmental funding during this especially challenging budget year. During the Q&A portion of the forum, Ottley brought up the fact that the various threats facing forests often exacerbate each other, citing how invasive species make it harder for forests to adjust to climate change. She also mentioned that there is a lot that local governments, planning boards, and town halls can do to protect forested areas.
John Bartow is the Executive Director of the Empire State Forest Products Association. During the forum, he talked about the role of the forests and wood products sector of New York in climate change solutions. Bartow mentioned that New York’s extensive and relatively stable forests provide economic, social, and ecological value. In addition to the $22.9 billion and nearly 100,000 jobs they provide to the economy, forests are the only existing large-scale mechanism for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Bartow also included the fact that despite a rise in the per-acre carbon sequestration rate, the annual state sequestration rate is declining due to forest conversion. This underscores the need to protect our state’s forests. According to Bartow, the increase in demand for harvested wood products is a positive development, because it encourages people to increase the area and productivity of forests. He stressed the importance of recognizing the role markets play in landowner decision making. During the Q&A section, Bartow talked about the huge impact of invasive species and emergent diseases on our forests, bringing up chestnut blight and mentioning that oak wilt has gotten people very nervous. With regards to a question on deforestation to clear space for renewable energy, he acknowledged that people want to be a part of the solution instead of simply saying to stay off their farms and forests.
The second panel was moderated by Elizabeth Wolters, Deputy Director of Policy at the New York Farm Bureau. She brought up that farmers are on the frontline of climate change, as they bear the brunt of storms and are affected by everyday weather changes. She stressed that agriculture has a large impact on the climate, not only through its methane and nitrous oxide emissions but also because it is one of the only industries which can sequester carbon. During the Q&A section, she said that farmer to farmer conversation is the best way to spread sustainable farming practices.
Jenifer Wightman is a research specialist at the Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. During the forum, she said that although agriculture accounts for only four percent of the state’s carbon dioxide emissions, there is still a need to focus on the sector’s methane and nitrous oxide emissions as well as the carbon dioxide that is released. According to Wightman, the agriculture sector can reduce emissions through sequestering carbon, destroying methane, increasing efficiency, displacing fossil fuels, and conserving energy and natural resources. She stressed the importance of cost in these practices, which is between $0 and $50 per ton of carbon dioxide mitigated. Finally, Wightman brought up the use of agrivoltaics, to allow farmland to be used for both renewables and agriculture.
Samantha Levy is the New York Policy Manager for the American Farmland Trust. During the forum, she reiterated Wolters’ point that farmers are on the frontline of climate change. She also mentioned that we need to produce 50% more food to accommodate population growth, while also cutting emissions as quickly as possible. Agriculture can help us get to net zero emissions, and that can be achieved through doubling annual carbon sequestration and reducing annual agriculture greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2050. Soils store 2 to 3 times more carbon than the atmosphere and 2 to 5 times more than plants. Therefore, Levy says, how we manage them matters. She mentioned that through using cover crops and no-till or reduced-tillage practices, we could potentially sequester an additional more than 850,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Levy also stressed the importance of protecting farmland; New York lost 250,000 acres of farmland between 2001 and 2016 and only 76,000 acres are permanently protected statewide. Levy also mentioned that our farmers are aging and that we need to bring a younger generation into the land.
John Macauley is a farmer at his family farm, Macaluey Farms of Livingston County. After tilling and unknowingly damaging their soil for 72 years, his family farm started experimental no-till in 2009. In 2014, they made the decision to go 100% no till. Now, the farm also employs cover crops, which warm the soil in the spring, help sequester carbon, protect cash crops from slugs, protect the soil from extreme rain, and give a nice layer of mulch for the next year’s crop. The result of these practices has been a $25,000 increase in revenue and 135% return on investment. During the Q&A section of the forum, Macauley mentioned that his family’s farm started to change their practices through a no-till program with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and then moved on to doing a cover-crop program with them.
Matt Tomich is the President of Energy Vision. During the forum, he emphasized that although methane accounts for only around 10% of GHG emissions in the state, it is responsible for 29% of the impact. He then went on to describe anaerobic digestion, a process through which organic wastes decompose in an oxygen-free environment and release biogas. According to Tomich, the vast majority of food waste ends up in landfills, where it emits large amounts of biogas and methane. Biogas has historically been used to produce electricity and heat, said Tomich. However, biogas, which is 50% to 65% methane, can be upgraded to renewable natural gas (RNG), which is 95+% methane. Tomich says that RNG can readily replace fossil fuels in numerous applications, and that the NY MTA began fueling more than 700 of its buses with RNG starting last fall. Finally, he emphasized that RNG made from dairy manure is significantly carbon negative.
Chris Noble is the Vice President of Noblehurst Farms. Noblehurst Farms practices converting manure into biogas which powers the rest of the campus. Noble explained that this is achieved by taking organic material and putting it in a vessel that can quickly turn it into biogas. He also noted that this system is replicable, and mentioned that it is most efficient to harvest methane on a larger-scale system. We must also divert organic material from landfills for either compost or digestor operations, says Noble. There is beneficial reuse for this material in energy production and returning nutrients back into land where they belong.
Thank you to our sponsor, ConEdison, for helping to make this forum possible.
We recently held the second virtual forum in our series on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act together with Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. This roundtable focused on reducing emissions from the buildings sector, both in and outside of New York City. Buildings account for 30% of statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and a staggering 70% of such emissions in New York City. The forum featured several expert speakers from the building and climate sectors: Zineb Bouzoubaa, Sarah Burger, Sophie Cardona, Marvin Church, John Ciovacco, Dan Egan, Donovan Gordon, Stephanie Margolis, Bill Norwak, Amy Turner, and Jason Vollen.
To view the recording of the forum, please click here.
The first part of the forum focused on New York City.
Amy Turner is a Senior Fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center and the co-founder of the NYC Climate Action Alliance. During the forum, she talked about Local Law 97 (LL97), a carbon emissions bill passed into law in 2019 which places a declining GHG emissions cap on the city’s largest buildings beginning in 2024. Failure to meet the cap results in a fine of $268 per ton of carbon above the cap. The cap does not apply to rent-stabilized buildings. Turner also mentioned that only a handful of other cities across the country have comparable legislation.
Zineb Bouzoubaa works in the NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. She mentioned that the city recognizes that the emissions cap is ambitious, and would look to incentivize more buildings to comply through studying alternative lower-cost compliance pathways. She also mentioned that the city is developing strategies which drive investment in environmental justice communities. Bouzoubaa also mentioned the use of carbon trading to provide an additional source of revenue for buildings because of the ability to trade credits.
Dan Egan is the Senior Vice President of Energy & Sustainability at Vornado Realty Trust. He published Vornado’s Vision 2030, the company’s commitment to carbon neutrality. During the forum, he mentioned that although LL97 only starts implementing penalties in 2024, building owners should start reducing their emissions now to minimize their exposure to the law in the future. Egan also clarified that the all energy consumed in a building, whether by the owner or the tenants, counts towards the energy cap, and that owners must work with tenants to ensure efficiency. Additionally, he mentioned that the most promising measures that owners can implement today include lighting retrofits, motor replacements, the installation of variable frequency drives, automation programs, damper replacements, and glazing. Egan also stressed the importance of submetering and sharing data with tenants. He also brought up the fact that even though people are working from home in light of the pandemic, energy consumption has not gone down proportionally because of IT needs.
Sophie Cardona is the Senior Project Manager at the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). Her work involves helping owners and tenants recognize opportunities to reduce emissions. During the forum, she spoke to the series of activities that can support the decision making process with respect to energy efficiency and management. These are available through NYSERDA, including expert advice and analytical models to calculate energy and cost savings. Specifically, she talked about FlexTech, a cost shared energy studies program which will provide 50-100% of the funding for an energy study. There is also a similar commercial tenant program, as well as a Green Jobs - Green New York program for small businesses. Cardona also said that COVID is impacting energy consumption in buildings because of the need for increased air filtration. According to Cardona, research is still ongoing, but possibilities include ventilation, filtration, and UVGI technologies.
Jason Vollen is the Director of Architecture at AECOM. He mentioned that there are other resources available to aid building owners in compliance, including PACE financing and energy savings performance contracting. He mentioned the need to challenge the demarcations between owner and tenant, and that looking broadly at entire systems will allow for larger improvements. Vollen emphasized the need for research dollars in the buildings sector. The city should consider utilizing geography to the city’s advantage as well as being competitive about how to reduce energy costs, according to Vollen.
The second part of the forum focused on the rest of the state, and was moderated by Bill Nowak, Executive Director at and Founding Member of NY-GEO.
Donovan Gordon, the Director of Clean Heating & Cooling at NYSERDA, brought up the CLCPA codified goals put in place years ago by the governor, including reducing carbon emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 85% below by 2050, as well as 0 carbon electricity by 2040. Also mentioned were the NY State Clean Heat Incentives program and the NYSERDA clean heat market development plan. Gordon stated that a third of carbon emissions in the state come from building HVAC systems, and that we need to transition from fossil-fuel based systems to heating pumps. We can increase the use of heat pumps through education and economic incentives, he says. Other than paying upfront, financing options include home improvement and/or equity loans, PACE financing, the NYSERDA program, third party ownership, and heat pump incentives from utilities. Gordon also stated that the transition to clean energy results in a fundamental change in the state economy from fossil fuels to clean energy.
Sarah Burger is the Sustainability Planning Manager at PUSH Buffalo. The priorities at PUSH are to make residents comfortable with the idea of installing a heat pump, as well as making sure that the resident’s bill doesn’t increase. Burger mentioned that there’s a large amount of older buildings in Buffalo, and that means that some need to have updated electrical service or insulation to be heat-pump ready. PUSH educates homeowners about insulation and makes sure to monitor utility costs. PUSH follows a one-stop shop model, building trust by talking directly with homeowners before getting them signed up for an energy audit. They then guide the homeowner towards the NYSERDA funding programs and work with homeowners through repairs. Burger stressed the importance of reducing the paperwork burden on homeowners, and said that municipalities need to make it clear that code enforcement is not going to punish people working to improve their houses. Burger also mentioned the need for financing for repairs to prepare houses for heat pumps, and suggested tying renewable energy such as community solar programs into the offerings.
Marvin Church is the Vice-President and a Founding Member of Comrie Enterprises. He is also a Westchester Chapter board member for NYLCV. He mentioned that although wealthy for the most part, Westchester does have poor residents, and a big issue is that there are lots of new buildings with unattainable rents. People are fleeing which is causing rents to fall, but this also gives an opportunity to create a comprehensive energy plan. According to Church, COVID has raised new challenges, including financial troubles and a degree of complacency. People have other issues to deal with during the pandemic, and many are unfamiliar with the heating and cooling system industry, so they will wait until the last possible moment to comply with the code. People will generally wait to see how heat pumps work for other people before trying it for themselves. There is also a trust challenge, as people are unwilling to get work done by individuals they do not know or trust. Because of this, large scale education is needed, says Church.
John Ciovacco is the President of Aztech Geothermal and a Board Member of NY-GEO. According to Ciovacco, resources must be allocated between weatherization and heat pumps. He says taking combustion out of buildings is most important through heat pumps, emphasizing the effectiveness of ground source heat pumps, which will take out 80% of on-site energy. However, there are challenges to the widespread adoption of heat pumps. For example, water based pumps struggle above 120-130 degrees fahrenheit. Where heat pumps will not work, Ciovacco suggests air-sealing the building. He also stressed that the building sector has to electrify through stepwise signals in the marketplace. Ciovacco liked the idea of replacing leak-prone pipes with geothermal systems, to incentive utilities to get them to cover the cost. He also mentioned that NYSERDA has put a map together to help identify low to moderate income areas.
Thank you to our sponsors, AECOM and ConEdison, for helping to make this event possible.
We recently held a ninety minute informational session on the South Fork Wind project in partnership with Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Group for the East End, Renewable Energy Long Island, and Win With Wind. The South Fork Wind Farm, powered by Orsted and Eversource, will be the first offshore wind farm in New York State, and is expected to become operational in December 2023. The event featured remarks from East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc, a presentation by the South Fork Wind project team, and a question and answer session hosted by Joe Martens, Director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance.
Click here to watch a recording of the event.
NYLCVEF President Julie Tighe kicked off the forum, mentioning that renewable energy projects like this represent one of the most important steps we can take to reduce the effects of climate change. She reiterated that New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act legally commits us to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Tighe also stated that the project will produce enough energy to power over 70,000 homes, and result in more than $29 million in investments to the local community.
Following, Peter Van Scoyoc delivered his comments on the project. He said that the South Fork Wind Farm is a necessary part of reaching the town’s 100% renewable energy goal. He also mentioned East Hampton’s Climate Smart Communities Bronze Certificate as part of its commitment to sustainability. Bringing up the harmful algal blooms caused by nitrogen pollution and the risk posed to the south fork of Long Island by rising sea levels and increased storms, Scoyoc emphasized the harmful effects of climate change. Finally, Scoyoc talked about the 1.1 megawatt solar farm project the town has already completed, which offsets 50% of municipal energy use in town government buildings.
Jennifer Garvey, Long Island Development Manager for Orsted, provided an overview of the South Fork Wind Farm. The farm will consist of up to 15 turbines located 35 miles East of Montauk Point. She also mentioned that the Wind Farm will deliver 132 megawatts of output to the Long Island Power Authority’s East Hampton substation. The power will be transmitted through a single 138 kilovolt line. Garvey also stressed that the project was very receptive to community concern, as they are adhering to nearly 200 negotiations when building the farm. She then outlined the three components of the farm in East Hampton, the first of which is a sea-to-shore transition. The sea-to-shore transition consists of a 2,500 foot horizontal directional drill (HDD), which begins in the road 500 feet landward of the dunes, and ends 1,750 feet offshore of the beach. The second component is an underground transmission line, which includes about 2 miles of cable under town-owned roads, and another approximately 2 miles of underground cable near the LIRR corridor. Finally, there will be an expansion of the substation.
Following Garvey’s presentation was a question and answer segment moderated by Joe Martens, featuring experts Ken Bowes, Vice President of Offshore Wind Siting & Permitting at Orsted, and Dr. William Bailey, Principal Scientist at Exponent. Ken Bowes started by fielding a question about what the sea to shore transition process entails. He mentioned that it consisted of drilling a 2,500 foot path for the cable and a conduit. The cable will extend 2,500 feet into the sea. To protect against future exposure due to erosion, the cable will be placed a minimum of 30 feet under the beach and will return to its regular depth when it is 550 feet inland. The use of the HDD method (illustrated in figure 1 below) as opposed to an open cut excavation method will also help protect against erosion.
Bowes went on to explain that throughout the project, beach and road access will be maintained for both vehicles and people. Drilling is expected to commence on November 1st, and will operate every day except Sunday from 7 AM to 7 PM. To deal with the noise pollution, the project will alleviate lots of high frequency noises as well as some of the lower frequency ones. Equipment will also be positioned strategically to minimize its noise pollution. There will also be real-time monitoring of noise levels, to modify noise if levels get too high.
Bowes also mentioned the construction of large underground concrete structures called vaults on Beach Lane, where the transition from a submarine cable to three separate cables takes place. The only visible difference post-construction will be the addition of two manhole covers. Vaults will be accessed for inspection after one year, before taking on a five year inspection cycle. There will be additional digging for 10 concrete-encased underground duct banks. Six of these will be located on publicly-owned roads, while the remaining four will be dug along the LIRR corridor. The work window on public roads will be from October 1st to April 30th, and it is expected to take 120 days to complete the work. The work pace will be 100 feet per day, resulting in 7-9 days of impact for a resident with 300 ft of frontage.
To expand the substation, a two acre parcel of land adjacent to the substation with low quality vegetation will be cleared. At the request of the community, the expanded structure will be only 45 feet tall and feature a permanent wall around it. There will be no residual noise while the project is running, Bowes says. Oversight for the project is expected to be provided from the contractors, South Fork Wind, the town, the state, and federal inspectors, to ensure everyone’s safety. Bowes pledged that if anything unsafe is observed, the job would be halted to fix it.
Dr. William Bailey, one of the world’s foremost experts on electromagnetic radiation and fields, fielded questions about the possible health and environmental effects of the project. When asked whether the EMF from the project could harm people, pets, or marine life, Dr. Bailey explained that exposure assessment was carried out as part of the project. He said that because of the cables’ depth and structure, the EMF radiation levels are 10-50 times below international guidelines even when standing directly above them. In fact, the magnetic fields we experience in our homes from electrical appliances can be hundreds of times higher than any exposure from the project. He said that all electricity is capable of producing electric and magnetic fields, but that the cables’ metallic casing completely blocks out the electric fields, and that the magnetic fields partially cancel out each other. He also mentioned that South Fork Wind is complying with not only the state standards set in 1978 and 1992, but also with the health-based limits set by the World Health Organization.
To view the presentation slides, please click here.
In partnership with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, we are hosting a series of forums on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). This landmark law compels the state to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 and with a goal of net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy.
The roundtable series focuses on specific solutions for achieving the goals of the CLCPA and covers the following sectors: offshore wind, buildings, transportation, natural resources, manufacturing, and waste. The goals of these forums are to facilitate meaningful discussion between experts on emission reduction solutions, while educating the public about New York’s landmark climate law.
This forum focused on the opportunities and challenges of decarbonizing the manufacturing sector in New York State. This forum took place on May 25th, from 10:30am - 12pm.
Please see the list of panel speakers below.
Moderated by Dr. Julio Friedmann, Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA
To view a recording of the forum, please click here. To read the forum recap, please click here.
This forum looked at how preserving New York State’s forests and lands help mitigate climate change, as well as how New York State farm management practices can help meet CLCPA emissions reductions targets through carbon farming and the use of anaerobic digestion. This forum took place on January 14th, from 10am - 12pm.
Please see the list of panel speakers below. Panel 1 discussed how protecting nature helps with climate change mitigation and adaptation. Panel 2 discussed how NY farms can help fight climate change through various techniques including carbon sequestration and the use of anaerobic digesters for organic waste.
John Bartow, Empire State Forest Products Association
Sam Bishop, Trees NY
Jessica Ottney, The Nature Conservancy
Moderated by Professor Shahid Naeem, Columbia University’s Earth Institute
Samantha Levy, American Farmland Trust
John Macauley, Macauley Farms LLC
Chris Noble, NobleHurst Farms
Matt Tomich, Energy Vision
Jenifer Wightman, Cornell College of Agriculture & Life Sciences
Moderated by Elizabeth Wolters, NY Farm Bureau
To view a recording of the forum, please click here. To view the presentation slides, click here. To read the forum recap, please click here.
Following the forum on Natural Resources, we will hold forums to cover the manufacturing, and waste. More information to come.
November 20th, 2020
This forum discussed reducing emissions from New York’s transportation sector, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state. The panelists focused on how two policies in particular -- the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) -- could help New York’s transportation industry meet CLCPA emission reduction mandates. Additionally, the forum discussed the importance of ensuring that these policies benefit the communities that are most disproportionately affected by climate change, often minority and/or low-income populations.
Panelists:
To read a written recap of the forum, please click here.
To view the recording of the forum, please click here.
October 15th, 2020
This forum discussed reducing emissions from the buildings sector. It began with a discussion about NYC buildings in particular, before expanding to a statewide analysis. Among the topics discussed were the effect of the pandemic on building emissions, community solar, clean heating & cooling systems, and incentives.
Panelists:
To read a recap of the forum, please click here.
To view the recording of the forum, please click here.
August 6th, 2020
We kicked off our CLCPA series in August, 2020 with a forum on offshore wind’s role in meeting the emissions reductions goals mandated by the CLCPA. The CLCPA mandates 9000 megawatts of offshore wind energy to be generated in NY State by 2035. The forum focused on the transmission of offshore wind power to shore.
The forum began with a presentation by the Brattle Group (commissioned by Anbaric) on their study that analyzed the costs, environmental impacts, and risks of various approaches to transmitting offshore wind power to shore. Following the Brattle Group presentation, the panel of experts (below) continued the discussion, addressing the points of opposition, the cost, and the infrastructure necessary to get offshore wind power to shore.
Panelists:
Panel Moderated by Joe Martens, Director, NYOWA
To read a written recap of the forum, please click here.
To view the recording of the forum, please click here.
October 2019
Together with the Earth Institute, Columbia Law School, and Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, we hosted a policy forum to discuss the implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). NYLCV President Julie Tighe issued opening remarks, in which she described the CLCPA as an enormous opportunity to not just reduce carbon emissions, but also to address the inequity of our polluting past. The first panel, moderated by professor Michael B. Gerrard, founder of Columbia University’s Sabin Center, featured a discussion about the current sources of greenhouse gas emissions across major sectors. The second panel, moderated by Professor Malo Hutson of Columbia University’s Graduate School, focused on “greening New York’s economy.” The panelists discussed how the CLCPA would affect their communities, from engagement around environmental issues to collaboration between the public and private sectors.
To read a written recap of the forum, please click here.
Together with Columbia University’s Sabin Center For Climate Change Law, we recently held the third virtual forum in our series on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. This roundtable focused on reducing emissions from the transportation sector, which is the state’s largest contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A recording of the forum is available here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9_YtVVLLLY
The forum featured discussions about two policies in particular: the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) and a Clean Fuels Standard (CFS). The forum was moderated by Nick Sifuentes, Executive Director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. It featured several expert speakers from the transportation and climate sectors: James Bradbury, Bruce Ho, Ben Mandel, Porie Saikia-Eapen, Kerene Tayloe, and Floyd Vergara.
James Bradbury is the Mitigation Program Director at the Georgetown Climate Center. During the roundtable, he spoke about how the Transportation and Climate Initiative would commit 12 Northeastern states to reduce emissions from regional transportation. The TCI proposes to cut down on the over 40% of carbon emissions that transportation is responsible for regionally through creating a multijurisdictional cap on carbon emissions. It proposes a 20-25% cut in carbon emissions from 2022-2032. It would also modestly raise prices at the pump and use the proceeds to fund research in and incentivize clean energy. The final memorandum of understanding for the TCI is on track to be released by the end of the year, with the policy set to go into effect in 2021. The TCI and its regional approach can get more done than if the states were to only act alone.
Bradbury also discussed the current federal political landscape. While he said that Congress is currently very unpredictable with funding, he stated that the Biden/Harris Administration will pursue climate-friendly initiatives such as setting federal vehicle emissions standards and restoring tax credits for electric vehicles. Because of uncertainty on the federal level, Bradbury contends that state and local leadership is critical to creating long-term climate programs. He said that a combination of bottom-up leadership from communities and state-level funding will be important.
Bruce Ho, Senior Advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, mentioned the need for an “all-hands-on-deck” approach to tackle the transportation sector’s pollution problem. He lauded the TCI’s enforceable declining cap on transportation emissions and $1.4 billion in annual funding it would create, citing its potential to save lives and prevent over 1,000 childhood asthma cases in New York every year. He mentioned the need to use TCI funds to support equitable solutions like mass transit. He also stated that it would be unacceptable if the TCI exacerbates existing disparities, and that the program will need to provide certainties and guarantees for health benefits for communities of color. Finally, Ho emphasized that no single policy is a silver bullet, and that it is essential for a clean fuels standard to work hand in hand with the TCI.
Ben Mandel, Northeast Regional Director for CALSTART, reiterated that while the TCI is imperative, we also need an all-hands-on-deck approach. A clean fuels standard would establish a declining standard for the carbon from fuels used in the state. It would create revenue to reinvest in the public transportation system and the development of low carbon fuels. He said that clean fuel standard bills have bipartisan support in the State Assembly and Senate. Mandle suggested using incentives to reduce payback periods for investing in an electric fleet in order to get more clean-fuel vehicles on the road. To handle areas without access to mass transit, he suggested enhancing first and last mile connections such as e-bikes and e-scooters, reducing the need for single-person car trips.
Porie Saikia-Eapen, Director of Environmental Sustainability and Compliance at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, discussed the agency’s long term goals for fleet electrification, including plans to convert the entire 6000-strong bus fleet to run on electricity by 2040. This process has already begun through the purchase of 15 electric buses and plans to order 500 more in the 2024 capital plan. She mentioned that the MTA has 2000 miles of track, covers 5000 square miles of territory, and moved an average of 9,000,000 people per day prior to the pandemic. The agency keeps 17,000,000 tons of GHG emissions out of the air annually by reducing the number of cars on the road, she said. It is currently looking to make a 10-year agreement with energy developers to install solar panels on bus depot roofs to send power to the grid. A similar program already exists with panels on the roof of the Stillwood Avenue subway terminal that power the station. Saikia-Eapen also mentioned that the agency exceeded its 2010-2020 goal of reducing energy consumption of spaces greater than 20,000 square feet by 20%. Additionally, the MTA is currently researching biodiesel as a possible fuel source. Finally, the agency is committed to reporting emissions on an annual basis to the climate registry and to meeting the science-based targets of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Kerena Tayloe is the Director of Federal Legislative Affairs at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. During the roundtable, she expressed some of the concerns about TCI, including that many of these policies were created without input from environmental justice communities. Tayloe also criticized the Trump Administration’s rollbacks of CAFE standards. She opposes market-based approaches to reducing emissions, which she feels are ineffectual. She supports the adoption of electric buses, and mentioned that an increase in the price of gas would only increase the burden on already-burdened people.
Floyd Vergara is the leader of the West Coast Office for the National Biodiesel Board. He discussed the clean fuels standard, which he said decarbonizes the transportation fuel pool, improves air quality, reduces dependency on fossil-fuels, incentivizes investment in new industries, and creates jobs. The CFS incentivizes alternative fuels such as biodiesel, which has created an estimated 38,000 jobs. Vergara said that the CFS in California has not had an adverse impact on prices at the pump. He says we often focus on the magnitude of emission reductions but ignore how long it would take to achieve these goals. Biodiesel can be implemented right now since it is compatible with existing engines and would significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from trucks. Electrification makes sense for light-duty vehicles, but for heavy-duty vehicles, biofuels will play an important role, said Vergara.
We will continue to plan more in our forum series on implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.
On August 6th, 2020, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund held a virtual forum on the role of energy transmission in New York’s plans to expand offshore wind power. The event was co-hosted with Anbaric Development Partners and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and sponsored by Con Edison. This forum was the first in NYLCVEF’s series focused on the implementation of New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The law requires New York to generate 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035. In response to its first round of solicitations, the state has already awarded projects that will total 1,700 megawatts. Announced just days before the forum, the state released a second solicitation for a record-setting 2,500 megawatts of additional offshore wind capacity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBPzDnhDdM
To get all of this power to land and to the people who need it, New York must upgrade significant portions of its energy infrastructure. The goal of the forum was to look at some of the key questions surrounding offshore transmission, including cost and environmental impacts.
The first part of the forum featured a presentation from The Brattle Group covering the findings from their study on different approaches to offshore energy transmission. The second part of the event featured a panel of experts to discuss their views on the report’s findings.
The report from The Brattle Group, which was commissioned by Anbaric, made the case that New York actually needs to generate more than its target of 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy to reach its overall carbon emissions reductions goals. They estimate that in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, we need to generate between 14,000 and 24,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity.
The Brattle Group’s presentation focused on two different approaches to offshore wind transmission: the radial approach and the planned approach. In a radial approach, each wind farm would use separate cables to connect their energy to the grid. A planned approach would involve connecting multiple wind farms to the same or to fewer cables.
Cost, risk, and environmental and community impacts are all factors that experts and policy makers must consider when determining which approach to take. The Brattle Group’s report examined these factors. and as a result of their research, recommends a planned approach. According to the report, a planned approach is estimated to save $500 million in expenses compared to the radial approach. That is a conservative estimate, as competition for bids between corporations was not taken into account. Their view is that planned transmission makes better use of points of interconnection (POI) on transmission lines, essentially resulting in more efficiency. Using fewer cables by maximizing POI lowers the environmental impact and allows generated energy to be directed toward larger substations.
The report also found that there are issues with curtailment. While the goals to increase energy production are admirable, the existing energy grid is not able to handle such a large amount of power at this time and infrastructure upgrades are necessary.
The next part of the event focused on the panel Q&A. Moderator Joe Martens, Director of New York’s Offshore Wind Alliance, asked experts to discuss funding for energy upgrades. Who will be paying for this? The Brattle Group explained that New Yorkers would likely pay for these costs, but the amount and method of payment would differ between the two approaches. A planned grid would allow New York to recover the cost of transmission over a longer period, while a radial approach would cost less in the short term but would bring less benefit.
Panelists discussed Europe’s approach to offshore wind transmission. Europe is more advanced in their offshore wind development than the U.S. The Brattle Group discussed how many projects in Europe began with radial approaches but eventually moved toward a planned grid. The UK, Belgian, and German governments now use planned systems.
Joe Martens then asked, “Where does the Department of Public Service stand on the two system choices?” Tammy Mitchell, Chief of Bulk Electric Systems at DPS, responded that given the ambitious energy goals in New York, there is a real need for a coordinated planning process related to transmission. Significant infrastructure is needed to connect these new energy sources to the grid, and DPS has commissioned a power grid study to identify where upgrades are needed.
Kirsty Townsend, Director and Head of Special Projects at Ørsted, an offshore wind company, added that for the Northeast, a shared system is necessary. Geographical and electric constraints have created concern about rushing into the build process and not learning from mistakes made in Europe. We should plan ahead and be ready for future offshore wind development with an upgraded system.
This forum made it clear that offshore wind development in New York State faces challenges in getting the energy generated offshore to land, on the grid, and to consumers. We likely need an all-of-the-above approach to ensure that the State implements a cost-effective and safe transmission plan.
NYCLVEF would like to thank our speakers, moderator, and sponsor for participating in this interesting conversation. You can watch a recording of the panel here. Stay tuned for more forums in our series on CLCPA implementation.
On March 5th, 2020, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, Sustainable Westchester, and Pace Energy & Climate Center co-hosted the Westchester Clean Energy Summit. The Summit focused on the future of clean energy in Westchester. Panelists from local and state government, academia, and business spoke about New York State’s new climate law—the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA)—and the opportunities that it presents to transition Westchester County to renewable energy sources. The event was divided into two parts: the first explained major components of the CLCPA, and the second focused on scalable solutions for powering homes and businesses using renewable energy across a diverse and densely populated county.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeVc333IznMLt9Dyku85DXI85QiybZcR-
Part One
The first panel focused on the CLCPA, which was signed into law by Governor Cuomo in 2019. NYLCV President Julie Tighe moderated the panel. Kara Allen from New York’s Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) discussed the ambitious new climate legislation, which commits New York to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the law requires New York to reduce GHG emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% by 2050. “Net-zero” allows emissions to be offset by other projects that remove GHG from the atmosphere.
The CLCPA also creates the Climate Action Council, a body of 22 state leaders and appointees who are required to develop a scoping plan for how the state will achieve the mandates of the law. Kara Allen reported that on March 4th, the Climate Action Council had their first meeting. She emphasized the importance of stakeholders and local leaders participating in this process.
In addition to its ambitious renewable energy requirements, the CLCPA includes provisions for environmental justice communities. It sets a target for disadvantaged communities to receive up to 40% (and no less than 35%) of the benefits from the state’s climate programs. The law also creates a Climate Justice Working Group, which will be tasked with identifying criteria for what constitutes a disadvantaged community. Radina Valova from Pace Energy & Climate Center summarized these provisions and highlighted their importance.
Next, Anjali Sauthoff, an independent environmental health consultant, emphasized how health outcomes are influenced by environmental factors such as air pollution and heat. She suggested that New York’s climate policy should focus on environmental justice communities since they are often hit hardest by pollution and the impacts of climate change.
Peter McCartt, Westchester County’s Director of Energy Conservation & Sustainability, highlighted local efforts to make operations more energy efficient. He acknowledged that large-scale renewable energy projects sited further upstate, hydroelectric power, and offshore wind could all help the county transition to cleaner energy. Continuing the conversation, Nancy Seligson, Mamaroneck Town Supervisor, discussed how she has led several projects in her town to improve the energy efficiency of public buildings. She also mentioned how important it is for local leaders to get involved in these issues and be vocal spokespeople to skeptical residents about the benefits of renewable energy.
Part Two
The second panel, moderated by Pace Energy & Climate Center’s Craig Hart, focused on existing local programs that can be scaled up. Sustainable Westchester has helped the county establish itself as a leader in the state through various community solar and solarize programs. Nina Orville summarized Sustainable Westchester’s efforts to green the grid in Westchester and make clean energy solutions available and financially feasible for companies and residents. Michel Delafontaine, also from Sustainable Westchester, highlighted how much of the clean energy that Westchester needs will have to come from outside the county, through the Empire State Connector and other transmission upgrades.
The next set of presenters focused on existing state programs that can help the county transition to renewables. Vennela Yadhati highlighted NYPA’s streamlined process for expanding community solar programs. Brad Tito from NYSERDA provided a snapshot of the county’s energy mix, and which municipalities are leading the way on clean energy by being certified Climate Smart Communities and Clean Energy Communities. Tito also focused on how to get more residents enrolled in community solar, and how municipalities can ensure that their residents are getting their energy from clean sources through community choice aggregation. NYSERDA’s Marilyn Dare also discussed how to use NYStretch energy codes to support improvements to the energy efficiency of buildings.
Ryan Boniello, a developer in Westchester, discussed how his company has incorporated geothermal systems in its developments. Mark Brescia of ConEdison discussed how the company manages energy demand, and how residents can transform their homes to be more energy efficient through energy audit programs. Hart reviewed the benefits of Combined Heat and Power, an energy efficiency solution that uses a combined system to produce both heat and electricity.
The Summit made it clear that there are many existing programs and opportunities for Westchester County to shift toward renewable energy. To scale them up, it is essential that communities and residents are aware of these programs and have access to these opportunities.
NYLCVEF would like to thank our special guest speakers, State Senator Peter Harckham and Westchester County Legislator Nancy Barr, for participating in the event. We also extend thanks to our Summit sponsors: ConEdison, JetBlue, Direct Energy, and Constellation. The slideshow that was displayed at the forum can be viewed here.
On November 21st, 2019, the New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV) co-hosted a forum with the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, New Yorkers for Clean Power, and the Union of Concerned Scientists on health and wind energy at the University at Buffalo. The goal of the forum was to provide attendees with scientific and fact-based information about the health impacts of wind turbines. Expert panelists included Dr. Jonathon Bunicore, Mike Hankard, Dr. Bob McCunney, and Jason Kehl. Featured lecturer, Dr. Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney, Australia spoke via telephone. All of the panelists agreed on the importance of addressing myths about wind energy using science and facts.
As New York State expands its investment and use of renewable energy, like wind power, it is important to address any potential impacts. The panel addressed many of the common myths associated with the impacts of wind energy and health, including the wind turbines cause insomnia, depression, and even cancer. The panel of scientists discussed these concerns and concluded that there is no scientific basis for many, if not all, of these myths.
Dr. Jonathon Bunicore, a research associate at the Harvard School of Public Health, presented his research on the public health benefits of wind energy. By first citing the endless dangers of climate change on human health, he said that renewable energy is needed to transition away from polluting fossil fuels that do pose proven threats to public health.
A common concern from community members living near proposed wind projects is the impact of noise pollution from the wind turbines. This was addressed by panelist Michael Hankard, a principal acoustic consultant from Wisconsin. Mike clarified many of the scientific measurements of sound that he says are often conflated on the internet and among wind opposers. He described his research on the noise levels of standard wind turbines and concluded that wind turbines are not even close to registering above unsafe levels.
Dr. Bob McCunney, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, further explained the lack of evidence for health impacts from wind turbines. Dr. McCunney described a Health Canada study that he was involved with that looked at the effects of wind turbine noise and health. He concluded that the study shows no association between the two. He highlighted the need to be careful when assessing the causality of symptoms, as there are many outside variables that could produce adverse health effects, not necessarily due to the wind turbine itself.
Speaking on his own experience living in close proximity to wind turbines, Jason Kehl, a dairy farmer from Sheldon, NY expressed his appreciation for renewable energy. With 10 years of having multiple wind turbines on his property, Kehl says he has had no issue with noise levels or bird strikes. Among the benefits he discussed, he emphasized the financial incentives of having no town taxes and increased property values as a result of the wind turbine installation. For the town of Sheldon, he says that this project has been widely successful and he has personally seen no adverse impacts from the wind farm.
Featured speaker Dr. Simon Chapman, an Emeritus Professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney Australia, gave the concluding presentation on “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” This phrase, as he explains, refers to widely circulated myths about how wind turbines negatively impact health. While the previous panelists spoke of the lack of evidence for these false beliefs, Dr. Chapman reviewed the anti-wind farm claims and highlighted the phenomenon of “confirmation bias.” Those with such strong opinions against wind turbines are likely to set out to find information that confirms these false beliefs. Dr. Chapman stressed the need for the public to follow only peer-reviewed studies and facts, and to be wary of the vast amount of false information on the internet.
These expert panelists highlighted the lack of scientific evidence that wind turbines cause negative health outcomes. In fact, the panelists demonstrated the benefits renewable energy, like wind power, can bring to society, including as a way to combat climate change and address local air quality concerns.
A recording of the event is available on YouTube, and ACE NY published their own recap of the event (including photos).
Thanks again to the University at Buffalo for hosting this forum and to all of our partners for organizing it with us: ACE NY, New Yorkers for Clean Power, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
On Monday, December 9th, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) and Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) hosted an educational forum on coastal resiliency strategies. Our panel of experts discussed the benefits and challenges of implementing nature-based coastal management projects on Long Island. The panelists included Alison Branco from The Nature Conservancy, Kathleen Fallon from New York Sea Grant, Alexa Fournier from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Marian Russo from the Village of Patchogue, and Michael DeGiglio from Cameron Engineering. The panel discussion was moderated by Larry Swanson from SoMAS. The program featured special guest speaker Jack Schnirman, Nassau County Comptroller, who introduced the Resiliency Progress Tracker for Nassau County.
The forum highlighted living shorelines as a nature-based solution to creating resilient coasts on Long Island. Living shorelines use natural items such as rock, vegetation, mollusks, and various natural structures to buffer storm surges. Living shoreline components are sometimes used in combination of “hardened” structures, such as bulkheads and concrete sea walls. Hardened structures alone can impede ecological processes near the shore, affecting marine wildlife and the progression of wetlands. Living shorelines transform overtime and create viable habitats for wildlife, while protecting coastal communities.
The topic of coastal resiliency is very timely for the communities of Long Island. Over seven years ago, Superstorm Sandy demonstrated the damage a powerful storm could do to Long Island’s infrastructure and communities. In consideration of sea level rise, there is great urgency for coastal municipalities on Long Island to begin coastal resiliency initiatives. Our moderator, Larry Swanson from SoMAS, made this very clear in his opening remarks, sharing examples of what the counties of Long Island are already doing to increase resiliency outside of living shoreline projects.
Our panel discussion began with emphasizing the importance of preserving natural spaces and coastal lands to increase resiliency from storm surges and sea level rise. Alison Branco from The Nature Conservancy explained that wetlands and marshes along the shoreline reduce wave height and energy, and therefore reduce the potential of waves to do damage. Branco also explained that wetlands naturally migrate and respond to sea level rise, usually moving inland. The issue then, is the presence of property and infrastructure. She recommends that if it’s possible and reasonable, to retreat from the coast and allow these natural habitats to adapt.
Kathleen Fallon from New York Sea Grant expanded on the various shore types of Long Island and the types of natural shoreline strategies best suited for each type of coastal environment. For Long Island’s bays and tidal wetlands, which act as buffers to storm sturges, it’s best to implement wetland restoration and living shorelines to provide stabilization and risk reduction to communities. The natural structure of the wetlands will increase the ecological benefit to these habitats, as well. Sandy beaches, including barrier islands that protect the island from large waves, are very dynamic in that sand is constantly moving on, off, and along the shore. Bluffs face erosion due primarily to groundwater, runoff, and wave action. Both bluffs and sandy beaches can become more resilient with added vegetation, which bind sediments together and actually help to grow dunes and bluffs.
When discussing living shorelines, it’s important to put this fairly new strategy into perspective and compare it to the traditional hardened strategies. Alison Branco explains that one strategy is not necessarily better than the other by default. The goals of a specific project, whether to reduce the risk of flooding from storms or from sea level rise, and the physics of the project area, will help determine the appropriate approaches to increasing resiliency. In addition, she had some recommendations for decision makers, including creating more robust programs to help people move away from flood zones if they’re at risk, putting up walls during storms which come down after the storm has passed, and rethinking zoning in order to protect and prevent the development of the natural shorelines that are still intact.
For those considering implementing living shorelines, DEC has created a Living Shorelines Guidelines document. Alexa Fournier, from DEC, shared an overview of the document, which serves as a resource for property owners and design professionals on permitting requirements and considerations. Before beginning a project, DEC requires a permit. Fournier advised that applicants first reach out and speak to people from different programs on the island, like the Peconic Estuary Program and NY Sea Grant to discuss some preliminary ideas. For municipalities, it’s recommended to look for grant opportunities to fund the project. During the application process, she recommends face-to-face meetings with DEC officials.
Living shoreline projects are often complex and require professional environmental engineers and landscape architects to design a plan and implement it. Michael DeGiglio from Cameron Engineering shared what professionals take into consideration when planning coastal management projects for a given location, including erosion rates and wave energy. He shared that because living shoreline permits are relatively new and the process is not always straightforward, permitting will take longer than for traditional projects like seawalls and bulkheads.
Marian Russo from the Village of Patchogue shared her experience with the living shoreline project that’s underway in her community. Russo shared the cost of some of the components for the project, including $200,000 for design and $1 million for construction. Her advice to other municipalities that are considering doing a living shoreline is to secure funding for the project by applying for grants that will cover the high costs for planning, implementation, and maintenance.
Kathleen Fallon wrapped up our panel discussion with options residents and homeowners can take for increasing resiliency. She clarified that there is always some risk when living on the waterfront, but there are ways to reduce one’s risk for flooding:
Each option is outlined in this NY Sea Grant document about flood risk reduction.
You can watch the full program on our Youtube channel. Stay tuned for NYLCVEF’s continued work on resiliency.
Thank you to our sponsor, ROUX, and to Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences for hosting this event.
Last month, we joined Columbia Law School, The Earth Institute, and Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell to host a policy forum on implementing the landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Two panels of experts discussed the opportunities and challenges of implementing the new climate law.
The CLCPA is an ambitious plan for New York State to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040 and economy-wide carbon-neutrality by 2050. A minimum of 35% of clean energy and energy efficiency funds collected will be directed towards disadvantaged communities with a goal of 40% investment. In addition, this law requires that by 2050, New York its reduce greenhouse gas emission by 85% from its 1990 level.
The law is the nation’s most aggressive example of climate action and will serve as a model for other states to follow. The forum started with opening remarks from NYLCV President, Julie Tighe. She referred to the CLCPA as an enormous opportunity to not just reduce carbon emissions but to also address the inequity of our polluting past. All New Yorkers need to benefit from the transition to a green economy, and this law can ensure the communities that need resources can get them. The opportunity is enormous, but much work remains to ensure this law is implemented effectively.
Event co-hostAssemblyman Daniel O’Donnell welcomed the panelists and audiences to the 69th Assembly District, which he represents.
The theme of the first panel was “Curbing Emissions by Sector,” moderated by the founder and director of Andrew Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School Professor, Michael B.Gerrard. Panelists included Natural Resource Defense Council’s Climate & Clean Energy Program Director, Jackson Morris, Ameresco’s Business Development Executive, Daniel Smith, The Nature Conservancy’s Policy and Strategy Director, Jessica Ottney, Regional Plan Association’s Senior Vice President of State Program and Advocacy, Kate Slevin, and Professor of the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP), Craig Schwitter.
During panel one, panelists talked about our current sources of greenhouse gas emissions by major sectors including energy, transportation, and buildings, as well as overcoming the challenges each sector will face when meeting the CLCPA’s new standards. All the panelists agreed that the new law is ambitious, but an exciting opportunity.
Professor Gerrard introduced the sources of New York State’s greenhouse gas emissions by sector, including 33% from transportation, 15% from residential, 13% from electricity generation, 10% from commercial use, and more. He then presented an overview of the greenhouse gas and energy reduction goals of the CLCPA. He pointed out the major challenges in meeting renewable energy goals, including the closing of the Indian Point nuclear energy plant and increased electricity demands that will result from the electrification of transportation, heating, and cooling. Currently, New York derives less than 30% of its electricity from renewable sources like hydropower, solar, and wind. The rest comes from fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Morris also discussed the challenges in the electric power sector. One major challenge includes building the infrastructure quickly and in an environmentally responsible way. Another challenge is how to replace existing energy storage infrastructure that was built for fossil fuels with a substantial amount of battery storage in an economically-efficient and environmentally-friendly way.
Smith began by saying that renewable energy companies are looking forward to meeting the CLCPA’s requirements. He suggested that collaborations among industries, municipalities, universities, and decision-makers are critical to developing renewable energy plans.
Ottney discussed how communities, landowners, and local governments view clean energy, and said that we need to find a balance between renewable energy development, environmental protection, and community needs. She also talked about The Nature Conservancy’s effort to help the communities reduce emissions at a local scale.
Slevin underscored that transportation is the biggest contributor to climate change in both New York State and the country. She also talked about how the Transportation Climate Initiative will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
Schwitter stressed that buildings consume 40%-50% of the energy generated in the United States as well as in New York City, a majority of which is used for heating. Saving energy should be a top priority in designing new buildings. He also pointed out that our behaviors are as important as the building design, therefore we must take responsibility for saving energy.
The theme of the second panel was “Greening New York’s Economy,” moderated by professor of Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, director of the Urban Planning Ph.D. program, Malo Hutson. Panelists included WEACT for Environment Justice’s Deputy Director, Cecil Corbin-Mark, IUOE Local 94’s Assistant Training Director, David Hawkins, Green City Force’s Chief Development Officer, Tonya Gayle, and New York Green Bank’s President, Alfred Griffin.
During this section, panelists discussed how the new law will affect the communities they represent. The CLCPA may create opportunities for the workforce, for green investment, and for investments in historically disadvantaged communities.
Corbin-Mark addressed the importance of including environmental and economic justice groups most impacted by climate change in the planning of policies and programs so that these communities can get the resources they need. He pointed out the opportunities CLCPA will bring, from engaging communities about environmental issues through a public health perspective, to creating pathways to green careers.
Hawkins talked about how the law affects engineers, a group that will be on the frontlines of making buildings more energy-efficient.
Gayle spoke about the experience of engaging young people living in public housing in the environmental movement, and how they can be leaders in their communities for reducing energy use and in taking advantage of educational opportunities in the green sector.
Griffin discussed how critical investment from the private sector is in achieving the CLCPA’s goals, and the role of the New York Green Bank in this transition to a green economy. Currently, Griffin said that investors are willing and looking to invest in sustainable technologies and infrastructure. He discussed how New York Green Bank finances some green developers’ projects at an early stage, helping the developers demonstrate their products to larger-scale investors so that more investors will participate. He also believes the collaboration between private and public sectors, good policies and regulatory regimes are critical to making the CLCPA financially successful
The forum concluded with remarks from Tighe about how his event will be one of a series of forums about the new climate law. Stay tuned for more information in the future. You can watch a video of the forum here.
Thank you again to our panelists and co-hosts for working with us on this event.
On Thursday, June 20th, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF) and Energy Vision hosted an educational forum on organic waste and biogas. Two panels of experts discussed the benefits of using food waste and waste from sewage treatment plants to produce biogas, or renewable natural gas.
Biogas is naturally produced as organic waste decomposes. Organic waste refers mostly to food waste, animal waste, and yard scraps. When these materials break down in an environment without oxygen, they release potent greenhouse gases, mostly methane and carbon dioxide. The process of producing biogas is called anaerobic digestion. Currently, most of our food scraps end up in landfills where they release these gases and contribute to climate change. Wastewater treatment plants also produce these gases which are often burned or flared, which is a big waste of a potential resource.
Understanding what biogas is and what the challenges and opportunities are for New York City to tap into this unused resource was the focus of this forum. As both New York State and City expand their food waste recycling programs, the opportunities to produce biogas and use it to heat buildings and fuel vehicles are also increasing.
Matt Tomich, President of Energy Vision, kicked off the forum by introducing the opportunities provided by both food waste and bio-waste. He stated that New York City generates over a million tons of food waste annually, and that wastewater treatment plants produce huge amounts of waste on a daily basis. Advancing technologies are providing ways to better manage our waste and put these valuable resources to good use.
The theme of the first panel was “Organic Waste to Fuel: What is Biogas? How Can it Be Used?” Panelists included Natural Resources Defense Council’s NYC Environmental Director, Eric Goldstein, Vice President of Quantum Biopower, Brian Paganini, Ameresco Senior Project Developer, Jim Bier, and Love's-Trillium’s, Charles E. Love Jr.
Paganini and Bier both noted that this is a special time for biogas with opportunities to take advantage of the organic resources the city already has. As New York transitions to a carbon neutral economy, this is an ideal time to develop cleaner alternatives to diesel fuel for heavy duty vehicles that are difficult to electrify. Paganini pointed out that there are currently 249 existing biogas production systems in North America, but there is potential for around 8,000 systems. Biogas production would help reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfills, which Paganini stated makes up around 18% of all solid waste in the city.
Love stressed the value of educating local governments and the public on alternatives to diesel fuel for transportation. He mentioned the cap and trade program in California that incentivizes companies to use renewable fuel for transportation and recommended New York replicate this by using biogas. Goldstein agreed that biogas production has a lot of potential, but the process must be executed carefully so as to be sustainable. He raised a few concerns with biogas production, including ensuring the digestate, the material byproduct of anaerobic digestion, be used as fertilizer instead of being disposed in landfills.
The theme of the second panel was “Challenges and Opportunities for New York.” Panelists included NYC Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Wastewater Treatment Deputy Commissioner Pam Elardo, National Grid Director of Gas Utility of the Future Don Chahbazpour, City of Toronto Director of Solid Waste Management Services Carlyle Khan, and NY Lawmakers for the Public Interest Director of Organizing and Strategic Research Justin Wood.
Khan spoke about the City of Toronto’s waste management system, which includes two food waste processing facilities. He also discussed ways that the city has expanded and incentivized its food waste collection programs.
Elardo discussed the life cycle of food, and how the loop can be closed when organic resources are used to generate energy that can be used in our homes. She mentioned the importance of improving our existing wastewater treatment infrastructure in addition to adding new capacity and technologies. Elardo informed attendees that if the wastewater treatment plants in New York City were upgraded, they could process all of the city’s food waste. NYLCV has been advocating for these upgrades.
Chahbazpour discussed some of National Grid’s efforts to provide clean energy. These include a green gas tariff, a program where customers can voluntarily pay a premium to decarbonize heat. He emphasized the need to reduce transportation emissions by considering alternative fuels, such as biogas. Wood discussed the commercial side of waste collection, as New York City is set to pass legislation to create a commercial waste zone system. This new practice could increase worker safety and reduce pollution. Paying for wastewater treatment upgrades and anaerobic digesters is expensive, but the panelists agree that financing these projects through public-private partnerships is a potential solution.
Adriana Espinoza, NYLCV NYC Program Director asked the panelists how to get New Yorkers to change their behavior and separate their food waste for composting. Wood responded that getting New Yorkers to separate out their organic waste is a challenge because residents aren’t paying for what they throw away, whereas businesses do. The panelists were then asked about the neighborhoods where waste stations are sited and how they think we can best address issues of environmental justice. Elardo said that while living near treatment plants used to be disruptive (due to odor, truck traffic, etc), these facilities are now striving to be friendlier neighbors that provide green jobs.
The forum ended with closing remarks from NYLCV President, Julie Tighe. Tighe connected New York’s landmark climate legislation to the timely discussion of biogas, since decarbonizing the transportation sector is required if we are to achieve carbon neutrality.
You can watch the first and second panels of the forum on our Facebook page.
Thank you to our Gold Sponsors, National Grid and AECOM, our Silver Sponsor, Cummins and Westport, and our Bronze Sponsors, Quantum Biopower and Love’s-Trillium.
Thanks again to the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management for hosting this event.
School buses are the largest form of mass transit in the United States, and they desperately need an upgrade. Emissions from diesel school buses are linked to asthma, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, cancers, and even higher mortality rates. No one should have to breathe in dangerous pollutants while riding the bus, especially when cleaner, safer alternatives, such as all-electric school buses, are available.
We held a policy forum about the negative impacts of diesel school buses and pathways to transitioning to an electric school bus fleet. Read the background paper here. Read a recap of the forum here.
We were joined by a panel of experts and local activists:
Peggy Shepard, WE ACT for Environmental Justice
Matt Casale, US PIRG
Adam Armstrong, Resilient Red Hook
Tevin C.S. Grant, Esq., Electric School Bus Campaign
Kevin Cromar, NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management
Zachary Lerner, ALIGN NY
We are seeking sponsorships to support an exciting new potential program. With enough support, we will convene key stakeholders for a series of roundtable discussions in Westchester, the Capital Region, Long Island, Hudson Valley, and Buffalo/Niagara on overcoming the barriers to siting renewable energy in New York. View our sponsorship package here, and please share with others. Reach out to Angela at ahotaling@nylcv.org with questions.
Siting renewable energy projects in New York State is moving slower than in many other parts of the country. Outdated zoning laws and building codes, a long and arduous state-level siting process, and local opposition all contribute to the slow pace at which New York is transitioning to solar and wind energy. That's why we're working with partners on a new program to break down these barriers and advance clean energy.
This policy forum focused on the economic, social, and environmental benefits of green infrastructure (GI) as an approach to managing stormwater. We brought together expert speakers and panelists to provide an overview of green infrastructure vs. traditional gray approaches and how it can be used to protect and restore water quality in the Delaware River Watershed region. From innovative examples to barriers and opportunities, this policy forum helped to equip local landowners and municipal leaders with the information and tools needed to get involved and bring more GI to their communities. Read the background paper here.
Speakers/Panelists
On April 27, 2018, together with our partners at Sustainable Westchester, we hosted a policy forum on electric vehicles. Bringing together state and local lawmakers, industry experts, community partners, and more, this policy forum looked at the current status of EVs and EV infrastructure in Westchester County. We discussed what local leaders can do to increase the use of EVs at the personal, municipal, and commercial levels. We also talked about what challenges we face in fleet adoption, and what policies or mechanisms we can leverage to increase EV use in the county.
View the full program here.
Achieving Our Goals
As a follow-up from the policy forum, we've put together a list of policy recommendations for how we can achieve our goals of transitioning municipal fleets, coordinating a plan for infrastructure, and getting an EV in every garage. Released jointly with Sustainable Westchester, these recommendations lay out specific ways for how we can increase the use of EVs in Westchester and achieve our goals. Check them out here.
Get Involved by Taking a Pledge Today
Help us achieve our goal of getting an EV in every garage by pledging to test drive an EV and see if it's right for your family and by pledging to tell your decision-makers to electrify your local fleet. Contact list for municipal elected officials can be found here.
Thank you to our generous supporter.
In September 2014, Mayor de Blasio announced an aggressive carbon reduction goal for New York City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. In order to address some of the key topics and major challenges to reaching these goals, NYLCVEF hosted a 4-part forum series this summer to address the 80x50 targets in the sectors of transportation, buildings, waste, and energy. Experts representing a variety of stakeholders debated and discussed the future of the city and the most effective way to achieve these goals, guided by questions from both the moderator and the audience.
The transportation forum focused on topics of equity, transportation availability, and infrastructure so that New Yorkers in all boroughs will have access to low-carbon transit. Buildings, as the largest contributor to greenhouse gas in the city, focused on the costs of improving energy efficiency particularly in existing buildings that have high retrofit costs. In the waste forum, panelists tackled the daunting question of how the city will completely eliminate waste sent to landfills and where waste will be sent instead. Finally, the energy forum looked at the challenge of transmission and connecting New York City with clean energy upstate.
The city officials, experts, advocated, and private sector leaders all added valuable insight into the feasibility of 80x50 and the best way forward. The conversations mimicked the type of cross-sector collaboration needed to craft the most effective policies, and NYLCVEF is hoping to make recommendations based on this dialogue that will shape the city’s path to achieving 80x50 with maximum stakeholder engagement. Learn more about any of these forums by clicking the links below.
Getting to 80x50: Transportation
How can we ensure sustainable mobility for all New Yorkers?
Download the Background Paper
Getting to 80x50: Buildings
Getting to Net Zero: What needs to be done to radically improve efficiency of heating and cooling systems in buildings, and how will it be funded?
Download the Background Paper
Getting to 80x50: Waste
Reimagining the waste stream: If we send Zero Waste to Landfills, where will it go instead?
Download the Background Paper
Getting to 80x50: Energy
The transmission challenge: How do we get enough clean energy to New York City?
Download the Background Paper
On February 1st, 2017, the NYLCV Education Fund hosted a forum on the topic of green infrastructure in the Capital Region. The forum featured two panel discussions of policymakers and green infrastructure experts from around the state, including representatives from the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, Cornell University's New York State Water Resources Institute, Albany Law School, Riverkeeper, The Nature Conservancy, City of Albany, New York State Environmental Facillities Corporation, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
You can watch the forum on our Facebook page here and download our recommendations here.
The first panel discussion reviewed the role that green infrastructure has already played in Capital Region sustainable development, including the successes and challenges of specific projects. Representatives from local agencies discussed the impact of past green infrastructure efforts and explored the ongoing work across the state.
Panel 1 Moderator: Katherine Meierdiercks, Professor of Environmental Studies and Science, Siena College
Panelists:
Martin Daley, Environmental Planner / Project Manager, Capital District Regional Planning Commission
Brian Davis, Professor of Landscape Architecture, Cornell University Water Resources Institute
Joseph Coffey, Jr., P.E., Water Commissioner for the City of Albany
Keith Hirokawa, Associate Professor, Albany Law School
The second panel focused on the future of green infrastructure in the planning efforts and watershed management of the Capital Region. Conversations focused on the roles that local government agencies, nonprofits, and businesses can play in encouraging sustainable development and taking advantage of its benefits. Panelists discussed opportunities for green infrastructure investment and share their visions for the path forward for sustainable development.
Panel 2 Moderator: Ruth Leistensnider, Partner in the Energy and Environment Practice, Nixon Peabody
Panelists:
Maureen Krudner, Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region 2
Brian Hahn, Assistant Manager of the Green Policy, Planning, and Infrastructure Unit, NYS EFC
Dan Shapley, Water Quality Program Director, Riverkeeper
Stuart Gruskin, Chief Conservation and External Affairs Officer, The Nature Conservancy
The NYLCV Education Fund partnered with Dr. Katherine Meierdiercks, Professor of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Siena College, to issue a research paper on policy options for the Capital Region in advance of the forum.
Many Thanks to Roux Associates and Nixon Peabody for sponsoring this forum, and to Albany Law School for co-hosting this event.
On Tuesday, October 11th, top environmental experts ranging from leaders in academia, policy, green infrastructure, and community-based organizations held a policy forum at the Buffalo History Museum, the focus of the discussion focused on green infrastructure in the Buffalo-Niagara Region. The forum was held in a two-panel discussion, both with an equal mix of interests and expertise, and was preceded by a background paper, written by Smitha Gopalakrishnan, PhD scholar, Urban Planning Department at University of Buffalo. The questions were geared towards developing a deeper understanding on what the role of green infrastructure will play in the sustainable economic growth, and improving the water quality in Western New York.
The Great Lakes Region, more specifically Erie County and the Buffalo-Niagara Region have been suffering from the impacts of stormwater overflows, taking a toll on several communities throughout area. This panel aids in developing a deeper understanding of recognizing the strides made by the Buffalo-Niagara Region to date, but stresses the importance, and need for a further policy push to help incentivize the implementation of green infrastructure, which is something New York State has yet to adopt unlike the other Great Lakes areas impacted by similar issues.
The first panel, moderated by Lynda Schneekloth, Professor Emeritus at the University at Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning, included experts and professionals from: the Buffalo Sewer Authority, PUSH Buffalo, the Army Corps of Engineers, Wendel, and the University at Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning. The panelists answered the series of questions in a discussion on their innovative green infrastructure work being done respective to their affiliation. Further discussed was the importance of overall collaboration, and how the City of Buffalo serves as a continued leader in addressing the issues of improving their water quality and maximizing their economic growth. To tie up the panel, the future of the projects were addressed by linking in the key challenges that are expected; the largest being the need for maintenance funding as well as civic engagement to bring the general public into the conversation, stressing the reasoning for the investment of public funds into green infrastructure projects.
The second panel, moderated by Carley Hill, Safety Director and Environmental Officer, Union Concrete and NYLCV Education Fund Board Member, included experts and professionals from: Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Go Bike Buffalo, the UB Regional Institute; as well as the Mayor of Williamsville, Brian Kulpa. The focus of this conversation shifted in the large scale picture of green infrastructure will look like, and play, in the future of watershed management and other regional planning efforts. Specific projects were highlighted, such as the Niagara Street Gateway. Panelists also stressed the importance of leadership from policymakers and continued public engagement - an overarching theme throughout the entire day - as one of the most significant steps towards enabling the region in maximizing benefits of One Region Forward.
The policy forum was informative for all members in the audience, as well as other panelists, towards understanding how to build a greener, healthier, and more sustainable Western New York. It also laid the groundwork to continue the conversation in Albany, at the NYLCVEF’s next Policy Forum.
Our policy recommendations stemming from the discussion are available here.
The forum was hosted by the Buffalo History Museum, generously sponsored by Roux Associates and Union Concrete, and featured by WBFO Buffalo.
New York City has made ambitious commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 and to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in ten years. Buildings account for roughly 70 percent of our emissions but affordable housing building owners and developers face a number of obstacles and policy challenges to making their buildings more sustainable.
In 2014-15, NYLCVEF conducted a civic engagement campaign in partnership with the Community League of the Heights (CLOTH), a local community development corporation (CDC) in Washington Heights. The campaign raised support for city funding to support the green preservation of affordable housing. In 2015, through continued conversation with CLOTH’s leadership and our other local partners, we identified a need for further education and engagement with various stakeholders on the issue. In partnership with Enterprise Community Partners and NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service, we decided to convene a forum on the many issues related to CLOTH’s important work and affordable housing through New York City.
On February 3rd, the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, Enterprise Community Partners and NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service co-hosted a policy forum on the Green Preservation of New York City’s Multi-Family Affordable Housing with generous support from Crauderueff and Associates.
Co-sponsored by NYU and Enterprise, and with generous support from Crauderueff and Associates, NYLCVEF hosted a policy forum entitled “Green Preservation of Multi-Family Affordable Housing” on February 3rd. In conversation with moderators Esther Toporovsky of Enterprise Community Partners and David Hepinstall of the Association for Energy Affordability, panelists from city and state agencies, utilities, and housing developers discussed the myriad barriers and opportunities for advancing green preservation of privately owned, publically supported buildings in NYC.
Each panel featured discussion of the complex and interrelated issues that must be considered when implementing sustainability retrofits for multi-family affordable housing, including education, financing, resiliency, and stakeholder collaboration. Panelists then took questions from the audience of students, issue experts, financial sector professionals, and community leaders.
The audience, as well as members of our second panel that primarily featured advocates and affordable housing developers, delivered a resounding consensus on the need for a “one-stop shop” for technical assistance and other retrofitting programs. Agency representatives discussed recent developments with New York City’s Retrofit Accelerator, designed for just such a purpose – and we believe that effective implementation of the Accelerator’s programs remains a key piece of Mayor de Blasio’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Throughout the fall of 2014, NYLCVEF brought together experts from different industries to discuss three big ways New York City can mitigate flooding, improve green space, and reduce waste. Our Dig Deep for a Greener New York policy forum series focused on Green Infrastructure, Funding an Equitable Park System, and Organic Waste and Composting.
On October 9th, we kicked off the series with our forum on Green Infrastructure. Our panelists from a variety of government agencies and nonprofits discussed how the city can manage combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and use green infrastructure to mitigate flooding. New York City's outdated infrastructure could benefit greatly from expanding green infrastructure and using it as a climate resiliency tool.
Read our background white paper and recommendations for New York City, and check out pictures from the morning.
Our second forum took place on November 6th and focused on Funding an Equitable Park System. In order to provide a fully-funded city park system the city will have to dramatically expand annual operating costs. Where will the money come from? Our panel provided great ideas on different funding streams to make sure every New Yorker has access to a safe and updated park.
Read our background white paper and recommendations for New York City, and check out pictures from the morning.
Our third and final forum focused on Organic Waste and Composting. PlaNYC2030 set out an ambitious goal to divert 75 percent of our solid waste from landfills. With food making up 35 percent of all waste generated in New York City, composting represents a huge opportunity. More than 100 people showed up for this forum, where some new and exciting ideas were presented about how to make composting work in our city. WNYC wrote a great article about the ideas presented by Councilmember Antonio Reynoso, and you can read more in our white paper and recommendations for the City. Don't forget to check out the packed house on our Facebook page.
Excess levels of nitrogen plaguing Long Island waterways has resulted in several mass fish kills, shellfish losses, harmful algal blooms, wetlands destruction, and more. Earlier this week, NYLCVEF hosted a forum at Stony Brook University to discuss this issue that has been over 45 years in the making. Scientists, politicians, and environmentalists gathered to explore and tackle the two main challenges of this nitrogen crisis: technology and finances.
Panelists Walter Dawydiak of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Amanda Ludlow of Roux Associates, Theresa McGovern of VHB, and Professor Harold Walker of Stony Brook University identified poorly treated septic system waste as the main culprit of the nitrogen crisis. Approximately 70% of wastewater systems in Suffolk County rely on septic systems or cesspools that leach wastewater containing high levels of nitrate into the ground, or remain unsewered, which means that on-site treatment is not meeting clean water requirements.
The problem of leaching is technologically difficult and expensive to fix, which led the panelists to explore the technical aspects of new sewage systems. The panelists discussed the implementation of advanced septic systems throughout the county as a pilot project. The main problem of these upgrades is the cost - as much as $30,000 for an individual homeowner. Walker estimated the cost of installing on-site upgraded septic systems throughout the county at $6 billion. He stated a need for better technology that is more effective, more reliable, and more affordable.
Southampton Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst, President of Jove Equity Partners and co-chair of Suffolk Planning Board David Calone, and Director of Sustainability and Chief Recovery Officer for Suffolk County Dorian Dale confronted the issue of funding to implement these upgraded systems in the second panel session. Some of the financial options include doubling the county’s water quality sales tax, extending the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund money to be used for water-quality related projects, bonding, and tax-increment financing. The panelists believe that solving this water quality problem could end up financially benefiting the county and stressed that Long Island has the opportunity to become a front-runner in clean water planning.
This forum was only the beginning, we look forward to continuing our work on Long Island to find potential solutions to this critical water issue.
Click here to download the background paper prepared in advance of this event.
Thanks to Roux Associates for their generous support of this event.
By Breanna Giovanniello
Though retrofitting buildings can help to save energy, many homeowners do not know how to go about making their homes more energy efficient and may be concerned about the associated costs. However, 'greening' a home can also have the benefit of increasing its market value, once homeowners know where to start. On June 5, 2013, NYLCVEF co-hosted a free public forum called "Building Blocks for Energy Efficient Homes" with the Westchester County Executive's Office. The event was designed to aid homeowners who want to make their homes more efficient but don't know where to start, or are worried that the projects will end up costing more than they save.
The forum consisted of two panels, each with an audience Q&A session. During the first panel, "Greening Your Home to Maximize its Value," industry professionals informed the audience about the latest in energy efficiency and environmentally friendly design. The panel was moderated by Judy Martin of Green Home Consulting, and the panelists were Susan Anthony, an Interior Designer, Leah Caro, a real estate broker, Jared Haines of Mercury Solar, Christina Griffin, an architect and Sean Murphy, of Murphy Brothers Contracting.
The second panel discussion, "How Do You Get Started?" was designed to educate homeowners about the existing and future residential incentive and financing programs to help pay for home-greening efforts. The panel was moderated by Pamela Lippe, NYLCV Westchester Chapter board member and principal of e4 inc, and the panelists included Tom Bregman of Energize NY, Kristina Klimovich of PACENow, John Sullivan of Sullivan Architecture, Anthony Marmo of Clover Comfort and Toby Simpson from Honeywell.
In addition to Westchester homeowners, the event was also attended by businesses and energy associations based throughout the county. More than 25 vendors were set up in the room to give attendees more information on taking the next step to green their homes.
In 2014, we once again partnered with the County for another panel discussion on residential energy efficiency which featured Judy Martin, who is consultant for Green Home Consulting and a member of NYLCV's Westchester Chapter Board.
In 2008 NYLCVEF launched its "Powering the Future" campaign. Our goal was to host a series of policy forums aimed at breaking through the clutter surrounding energy policy and providing policy makers and the general public with an unbiased and neutral arena to discuss these critical issues. Partnering with NYU's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and its Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems, we hosted three forums focusing in solar, wind and nuclear power in the fall of 2008 and two more events focused on energy efficiency in the spring of 2009.
Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency
Background Paper
Terminology Handout
Nuclear Energy Forum
Background Paper
Slide Presentation
Basic Energy Terminology Handout
Wind Energy Forum
Background Paper
Slide Presentation
Basic Energy Terminology Handout
Solar Energy Forum
Background Paper
Slide Presentation
Basic Energy Terminology Handout
Did you know that New York City ships 10,500 tons of residential waste to out-of-state landfills every day?
That adds up to nearly 27 million miles a year -- all on large, long-haul trucks that spew massive amounts of climate-warming emissions into our air.
New York City is lagging behind other major cities in the adoption of new technologies, even as our current system grows more and more expensive. Isn't it time for the Big Apple to rethink its solid waste management strategy -- and soon?
"Wasted Opportunity? Confronting NYC's Solid Waste Challenges" was a provocative half-day discussion that included a full accounting of New York City's existing solid waste challenges and charted out a course for a more sustainable future.
This policy forum took place December 6, 2012 at the New York City Bar Association.
"Wasted Opportunity?" explored the critical and timely issue of how New York City can best manage the nonrecyclable fraction of its municipal solid waste. Our speakers discussed the economic, environmental and public health impacts of the city's current system of managing unrecyclable waste, with a new system utilizing a range of new conversion technologies that extract and create energy and other resources from waste.
Our speakers were:
PANEL 1:
Caswell Holloway; NYC Deputy Mayor for Operations
Eric Goldstein; Director, New York City Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council
Carol Kellermann; President, Citizens Budget Commission
Thomas Matte, MD; Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Environmental Surveillance and Policy, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene.
Maria Gotsch; President & CEO, New York City Investment Fund
Moderated by NYLCVEF President Marcia Bystryn
PANEL 2:
Kate Ascher; Principal, Happold Consulting
James J. Binder, P.E.; Principal, Alternative Resources, Inc.
Helena Durst; Vice President, The Durst Organization
Brendan Sexton; President, The Sexton Company
Jamie Stein; Coordinator, Environmental Systems Management Program, Pratt Institute
Moderated by Adam Lisberg, Editor, City & State
This forum was generously sponsored by:
Additional sponsors included the Energy & Environmental Law Committees of the New York City Bar Association and Columbia Law School's Center for Climate Change Law.
Our media sponsor for this special program was City Hall News, part of the Manhattan Media publishing group.
New York State officials applauded the 2012 legislative session as one of the most productive in history. But what got done for the environment?
NYLCVEF and our environmental partner organizations joined together to answer that question at a panel discussion held in New York City. Called "Who is the Greenest of them All?" the discussion updated New Yorkers on several key legislative initiatives affecting their air, water and health.
One of the biggest environmental successes of the year was the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Law, which requires sewage treatment plant operators to notify the public whenever a release of untreated sewage occurs. Gov. Cuomo signed this law into effect during the summer.
Lawmakers also approved additional environmental funding that will help municipal parks, recycling and land conservation efforts.
But several other initiatives didn't make it through Albany's political process. Among them were the Solar Jobs Act, closing a loophole on hydrofracking wastewater and protecting children's health from toxic chemicals.
Dozens turned out to participate in the briefing, which took place in New York City. NYLCVEF would like to thank our partner organizations -- Environmental Advocates of New York, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Environment New York and the Energy and Climate Center at Pace Law School -- for organizing this great event!
Some of the most pressing questions regarding urban parks address how our urban environments can incorporate nature and how these parks can promote community. NYLCVEF's symposium "What is an Urban Park, Anyway?" cohosted with the Yonkers Committee for Smart Development and Groundwork Hudson Valley looked to address these questions and more . This public symposium featured six speakers--Meg Walker, Vice President, Project for Public Spaces; Rick Madger, Executive Director, Groundwork Hudson Valley; Yvette Hartsfield, Yonkers Parks Commissioner; Rose Harvey, the New York State Parks Commissioner; Christopher Rizzo, Board member of Friends of Van Cortlandt Park and New Yorkers for Park; and Dart Westphal, board member of Friends of Van Cortlandt Park; who sat for a Q&A panel session in the second half of the event. NYLCVEF President Marcia Bystryn moderated the panel.
In their presentations, the speakers addressed several topics including:
Rose Harvey and others highlighted the new Saw Mill River Daylighting Park, and many spoke to the success of The High Line as a model for future park creation.
The audience of over 50 community members asked thoughtful questions that addressed local issues such as - How do we enjoy the waterfront if it's covered in old industry? How do we prevent property prices around parks from skyrocketing? How often does the Parks Department mow?
So what IS an urban park, anyway? The symposium started with an image of Central Park, often thought of as the "ideal" urban park, but as the audience learned about parks throughout Westchester, New York City, and even Detroit, it was emphasized that parks are open spaces for community gathering-they can be "natural" as many of the parks in Westchester are, or be created around abandoned rail lines and covered up rivers, infrastructure like the Old Croton Aqueduct. Perhaps the most important key to Urban Parks is community involvement, which Yonkers residents showed through their attendance and engaging questions.
Thanks again to our co-hosts, Groundwork Hudson Valley and the Yonkers Committee for Smart Development, as well as to our panelists, for making a great event.
On Tuesday, November 8th, voters on the East End of Long Island had an important environmental decision to make on their ballots: whether or not to extend the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) in the five East End towns.
Each year, NYLCV and the NYLCV Education Fund work closely with New York’s leading environmental, public health, conservation, energy, environmental justice, and transportation organizations to identify the state’s most pressing priorities on fighting climate change, conserving land and water, and protecting public health. The result of that effort is our 2017 New York State legislative…
Water issues might not be making as many headlines anymore, but even if your local supply hasn’t made it to the news, you might remain at risk without knowing it. Given the number of contaminants that can make their way into shared or even private wells, you’ll need to make sure your drinking water stays…
The summer heat means more sweat, and by extension more loads of laundry to do. However there a variety of practices other than re-wearing your sweaty gym clothes that can make your laundry practices more sustainable. Wash with Cold Water Studies show that 75% of the total energy-use and carbon emissions associated with your laundry…
Eating locally is easy in the summer, when farm stands seem to be overflowing with fresh fruits, veggies, and leafy greens, so now is the best time to build a seasonal eating habit. Here are some more tips to help you green your diet:
The New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund is pleased to present this 2017 Green Guide as a resource for all candidates running for public office in New York City. This document, released at our Environmental Candidate School, is a one-stop-shop for candidates to learn about new opportunities and approaches to persistent sustainability problems….
Temperatures are finally starting to drop, and we’re welcoming the crisp autumn air. One of the best ways to fully appreciate and experience the beauty of it is to spend time in one of New York State’s parks. Boasting some of the most beautiful nature in America, New York is home to over 200 state…
With travel, gift giving, and many big meals, the winter holidays are one of the times of the year with the highest rates of personal consumption. Because of this heightened consumption rate, the holidays are the time when being conscious of sustainable practices will have the greatest total impact. Here are some holiday practices you can take to generate an impact, and others that can help foster a sense of love and consciousness toward the environment.
Are you planning on starting 2018 off with the ever-popular goal of working out more often? If so, we have some tips to help you burn calories while staying environmentally friendly. Working out offers countless benefits to the mind and body, but if you’re not careful, it can cause a detriment to your ecological footprint….
Website by Trillion.
© 2017 New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. All rights reserved.