[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now, for our Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show for this week, more on the climate side for this round. New York State has set some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country yet. Two gas pipelines, anathema to the green energy movement, pipelines proposed by the Williams Energy Company are suddenly back on the table. One pipeline would run from New Jersey through New York Harbor and into Far Rockaway. That one's called the Williams' Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline, NESE.

The other would run from Pennsylvania into New York across about 125 miles of the Southern Tier. That area upstate along the Pennsylvania border that's called the Constitution Pipeline? These pipelines, we should note, have been rejected before, but after new talks between President Trump and Governor Hochul earlier this year, they're now closer than ever to approval, according to what we're seeing, and on an expedited timeline, no less, apparently. The project's backers say they would help meet downstate energy demand that would presumably be good for energy costs, which we all know from our utility bills, have been rising.

Opponents warn they would saddle New York with all the ramifications of new fossil fuel infrastructure, just as the state is legally bound by its own policies, signed, I believe, by both Governor Hochul and then Governor Cuomo, to move toward renewables. Beyond the climate math, there are concerns about the pipeline's impacts on New York Harbor itself, from construction dredging to long-term water quality. Joining us to talk about what's at stake are New York State Senator Liz Krueger, chair of the Senate Finance Committee. She represents Manhattan's East Side. Rich Schrader, New York government affairs director at the environmental group NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Rich and Senator Krueger, welcome back to the show. Hi.

Rich Schrader: Hey, Brian. Thank you.

Senator Liz Krueger: Hi, Brian, hi, Rich. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we want to hear from you, as usual. What do you think about the proposed gas pipeline to the Rockaways? If you have an opinion, do you see it as a necessary step to keep the city's energy reliable and affordable or as a setback for New York's climate commitments? If you live near the route, in either case, how concerned are you about the local impact? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Call or text. Senator Krueger, as I noted in the intro, these projects had been turned down before. What changed?

Senator Liz Krueger: Absolutely nothing from the arguments about why New York State turned them down. All the same problems will exist, and New York State should turn them down again. The one thing that seems to have changed is that the Trump administration made some kind of demand on the governor or deal with the governor, I don't know which, and so suddenly, she is not just saying, "Okay, they're back on the table," but appears to be fast-tracking the approval for the exact same pipelines. As you already just said, Brian, there's real negative implications for the entire state of New York.

We're talking about pipelines that will go through hundreds of towns and cities, exposing everyday people to new leaky gas pipes, threatening more than 250 waterways throughout the state. Guess what? It will probably cost us as the ratepayers over $200 million per year in increased energy bills over the next 15 years, because somebody is going to have to pay the new costs for this additional gas running through our city and the entire state of New York. It's a bad deal, whatever the actual deal is. New York State should again reject these pipelines for the exact same reasons we rejected them multiple years.

Brian Lehrer: Senator, let me stay with you to ask what authority the governor has on these matters. Is this a decision that she can reverse on her own after whatever threat or deal she had or made, or had made against her and the state in her meeting with President Trump? What does the law that was passed by the legislature and signed by her-- you can tell me if there are multiple laws here. Maybe something she signed, maybe something Andrew Cuomo's governor, signed. What are the laws that govern, govern this, and how much authority does she have to just reverse the previous decision?

Senator Liz Krueger: She doesn't need the legislature to approve or not approve new gas lines, but I think you're absolutely right that the action of approving expanded gas lines and expanded fossil fuel then puts us in direct violation of the CLCPA, the strongest climate safety for our air and water bill that any state passed. I do expect there will be some litigation that the action of deciding to approve one or both of these pipelines will hit us up against violating our laws. The legislature doesn't get a vote in whether or not these pipelines are approved.

Brian Lehrer: Just to unpack the acronym, the initials for our listeners, you referred to the CLCPA. That's New York's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which commits the state to slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Rich Schrader, from NRDC's perspective, what are the environmental risks of these two new potential pipelines, and how do they square with the state's legally mandated emission goals?

Rich Schrader: Let's start that one first, Brian. We have, with the climate law that was passed in 2019, a number of different goals as far as how to hit wind and solar mandates. More importantly, though, in 2030, the state is supposed to have a 40% diminishing of greenhouse gas emissions, which is those are the gases, methane, CO2, that create greenhouse gases and hurt in terms of climate and climate change and climate problems. Secondly, by 2040, New York State is by law, by statute, bound to have 100% clean energy, which means no fossil fuel in the electric sector.

Obviously, this moves against both of those, but let me be even more specific. This is political. These two pipelines shouldn't even be on the table. They've been rejected over and over and over again. Certainly, as far as the New York City pipeline, it's called NESE, I'm going to call it New York City pipeline, which is going to run straight up into the Far Rockaways, across from Jersey, into Staten Island, underneath Coney Island. This is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. We're talking about an area, by the way, which the city and state has invested enormous amount of money into in New York Harbor.

40,000 acres in parks and new public waterfront spaces. 17 million visitors in 2024 who spent $700 million in those communities near the park, in sailing, canoeing, sport fishing, a destructive gas pipeline with possible gas leaks that could harm all that economic development, and the tourist and sports industries down there. Governor Hochul should do a tour, walk through those communities, and get an earful from those people down there who live there. There's no reason to have this pipeline built. It's been rejected because in both instances, the Constitution pipeline and NESE failed to prove that they could abide by New York State's water quality laws. That's the power the state has.

They can look at it from the lens of clean water, and they can deny these pipelines, and again, as the senator said, without state legislative approval, but it is violating the statute of the climate law. The last piece I want to say is, if the governor feels like she's being able to cut a deal with this president, give me a break. The governor has done some good things, congestion pricing, polluter pay, some very good things over the years, but let me tell you something, I think we've learned in the six months, at least, Americans have learned you don't cut a deal with Donald Trump. Ask Columbia, ask CBS, and Stephen Colbert. Ask anyone, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind.

He just wants more and more and more because wannabe dictators are going to want more and more. Any deal here being cut, he'll come back for more. It's a bad deal for New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: In fact, Senator Krueger, here's an interesting text, kind of to that effect, from a listener. Listener writes, "Many of us who know these pipelines know they should stay dead and hoped Hochul had learned from European leaders to flatter or lie to Trump's face and then do nothing. Apparently not. Sigh." We don't know if she's going to do this yet, right? Maybe she is doing what the listener characterizes European leaders as doing, flattering Trump to his face and then not doing what he wants.

Senator Liz Krueger: If that's true, that's just fine, but that means she can't approve these two pipelines. She does appear to be fast-tracking and rushing. A group of our congressional leaders sent her a letter demanding a longer public comment period and hearings on these pipelines. Apparently, she's never responded to that request. This shouldn't be done in dark of night. It shouldn't be done without a most absolute open process. As you point out, the people who will be negatively impacted get a say. Some people in her administration are saying, "We have to do this because we're not being allowed to continue our efforts in renewable energy."

That's also Donald Trump declaring that renewable energy is more expensive, which is a lie, and that renewable energy can't go forward at all, which I also think is another game where he's saying you can't do wind, battery, solar, offshore wind. Yet some of the most red powerful states in this country, Texas, for example, 90% of their plans moving forward is our sustainable energy expansion. I think he's bluffing on all of that, also.

We should just let that bluff play out and keep our commitments, as Rich just said, to our targets, to sustainable green energy, which not only brings down the costs for all the ratepayers in New York State, also continues to help us meet our 2040 targets, as was just described by Rich.

Rich Schrader: I was going to say, if you look at the Federal Energy Information Administration, federal agency, this year, they're telling us that solar will contribute more than half of all the new power capacity nationally in 2025 and likely will contribute more than half in 2026. Even as Trump and the polluters lobby attack every aspect of renewables on all fronts. The real truth is solar is doing extremely well, and wind would be too, except we've got this enormous attack coming at that industry from the Trump administration. Also, what doesn't ever get talked about much is the actual cost of fossil fuels and gas, included.

2020 to 2022, gas prices tripled, partly because of the Russia's attack on Ukraine, but it also stayed high. There were a number of SEC antitrust cases taken against some oil and gas companies, including Pioneer Energy, which was charged with colluding with OPEC to keep prices high. Pioneer, incidentally, was purchased by Exxon. This is an industry where we can't control the volatility of the prices either because of foreign governments, where we get it because of supply chain issues, or because simple price gouging where sun, wind, hydro, these are much more controllable prices, and we have a much easier way of figuring out how we can use that capacity.

What's also troubling with Hochul is that her administration turned down Clean Path Transmission Line, which was largely hydro and wind, because of costs or also because it said the energy in New York City or the power in New York City wasn't needed for another decade. If that's true, why do we need NESE? Although I would argue we still need to begin supplying as much as we can on clean energy and renewables.

Brian Lehrer: We're talking, if you're just joining us, about reporting that indicates Governor Hochul may be giving new life to two pipeline projects for New York that were previously rejected after a meeting she had with Donald Trump. Listener writes, "Hi there. I live near the Dominion Gas pipeline in central New York that saw a large expansion across upstate just before, conveniently, the ban Cuomo put in place over significant local objection and pushback. It is a move in the wrong direction." The Listener writes, "This feels like her 'rejection' of congestion pricing conveniently before her last election. Ridiculous backpedaling," writes that listener.

Senator Krueger, to that listener's point, about how the local communities upstate that would be affected, some of them didn't like the fracking ban that Governor Cuomo instituted. Is part of the pressure here from different parts of the state, either along the Southern tier for the one pipeline or in New Jersey, and along the route where the other pipeline would go, coming in from New Jersey across New York Harbor through the Rockaways, and et cetera? Is some of this about jobs? I think maybe the labor unions support these projects. Give me a sense of the other side besides Trump just saying, "Drill, baby, drill," and being against renewables.

Senator Liz Krueger: There's always some differences of opinion. You are correct. Some in the Southern tier were opposed to ending fracking in New York because, frankly, they had been misinformed about the dollar signs in front of them that would happen with continued fracking. What we've learned, of course, is that the areas of Pennsylvania that continue fracking have done just enormous damage to their property values, to nobody being willing to do insurance, to any property that's fracking can never basically get property insurance or a mortgage to sell or buy property again.

The negatives have been huge. It doesn't mean there weren't still people being lied to by the companies who wanted to frack underneath their property. As far as jobs, it's always a fascinating discussion because you do have a few unions within labor who build oil pipelines and repair oil pipelines who see the ending of the use of fossil fuels as a serious problem. The vast majority of unions have actually caught on that a sustainable green economy has more jobs for workers than any model we are currently using. It's true that 20 years from now, there might not be a lot of people working on oil pipes, but it's the next generation, and they'll be working on something else in energy, frankly. Better, safer jobs.

You and I know, Brian, this is a labor state. These will be jobs with labor protections. I think those who say, "We'll lose jobs," are basically a bit self-centered about some specific people currently in specific jobs and refuse to even understand that we're talking about new jobs for more people that will probably be represented by their unions. Just the next generation.

Brian Lehrer: Chris in Stirling, New Jersey, you're on WNYC. Hi, Chris.

Chris: Hi, good morning. Thanks so much for taking my call. I'm wondering if your guests might comment on the Empire Wind offshore wind project that's being built off the coast of New York now. The role it plays in our climate goals in New York, and also maybe the role it played in the "deal" for the potential approval of these gas pipelines.

Brian Lehrer: Rich Schrader from NRDC, you have anything on that?

Rich Schrader: Yes, the Empire Wind Project's critical in terms of New York State and New York City power sector. It'll do several things. One is clean energy, but secondly, it'll help to shut down some of the most toxic and dirtiest peaker plants that are gas plants. Those are the ones that you have to use at the peak moment in terms of the highest use of electricity. We need more offshore wind. The climate law had us getting 9,000 megawatts by 2035. As we said earlier, the Trump administration and the polluters lobby, they have been attacking offshore wind and solar at every level. Solar has continued to really flourish. Offshore wind has had some issues here because of those attacks.

I believe there's plenty of ways for governors in terms of being more aggressive about building these offshore wind facilities where they can push it through. And these will be very important for us as we move forward. It's also a place where a lot of jobs are produced. These are laborers, mason tenders, carpenters, the whole construction trade, as there is in solar, especially the larger solar arrays and industrial solar, as there is, frankly, in terms of energy efficiency. There's a lot of jobs, a lot of union jobs. One thing to think about fracking and to think about pipelines, it's boom or bust. There are jobs as you're building it, then it all disappears.

Just look at what eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania has suffered through with fracking. There's been a number of reports and studies that have looked at the amount of jobs really created. Sure, there are some jobs created in the short run. They spike, but they disappear. A lot of those jobs are not jobs that are hiring local people. Those are jobs coming in from Texas, Oklahoma, and basically the pipeline industries workers and their workforce they bring in. That's not a terrific way to create jobs, but we can have strong long standing job creation and keeping the administration going for renewable energy.

Brian Lehrer: Jennifer in the Bronx, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jennifer.

Jennifer: Hi, how are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good.

Jennifer: I just want to say, as a consumer and somebody who really watches my utility bill for quite a while, the cost that's on my utility bill that makes it so expensive is the delivery charges, which right now we're about to have another public hearing to talk about Con Ed raising the prices because they have to replace so much infrastructure. That is, regardless of where that electricity is being generated, whether it's fossil fuels or renewables. Everybody who's up in arms saying we need fossil fuels to lower our utility bills, the bills are not going down because we have fossil fuels.

They're just going to stay up and become more expensive when we start having to pay for the pipelines, besides all the infrastructure to deliver it. I think people are disillusioned if they think that's the solution to lower utility bills.

Brian Lehrer: Jennifer, thank you, Senator Krueger.

Senator Liz Krueger: It's fascinating because Donald Trump keeps saying he promised lower utility bills, and since he's taken office and tried to outlaw windmills, offshore wind, solar, et cetera, we've actually seen record-breaking increase in electricity and energy costs. He's basically, as usual for him, lying to the American public and telling them, "My policies will lower your utility costs." While the reality in just nine months as him as president is the opposite. Yes, there's always going to be infrastructure costs for energy, transmission lines, particularly, and we have to do it because we have to expand the amount of energy we have.

The research is clear that green energy, once the infrastructure is addressed, is radically less expensive than oil, gas, coal, which are actually going the opposite directions and continue to go up. There's even national data showing the states with more green and sustainable energy have seen lower cost increases than the states that depend completely on natural gas, oil, and coal.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Chris, let's end on this, and I'll give you the-- I mean, Rich, I'll give you the last word. This is what confuses me the most about Trump energy policy, because his argument is that, hey, the US has all these fossil fuel energy resources. Americans need abundant energy. The more supply, the lower the price, in theory, in any market. The climate-focused restrictions, Trump argues, his energy secretary argues, have gone further than they should. That the risks to the ratepayers are outstripping the possible climate effects benefits. That's the argument. Obviously, we can debate those pieces of that argument.

In that context, he's not pursuing an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Like, "Let's go back to drill, baby, drill, but also let's keep producing wind farms and a lot of solar energy." Instead, he's trying to restrict the development of those energy sources, which I think an economist would tend to say will help keep prices down generally because throw as many sources of supply into the pipeline, so to speak, as you can. What's he really up to?

Rich Schrader: The issue really is, of course, as I said, it's political. Trump raised an enormous amount of money from the fossil fuel industry, $300, $350 million, almost as much as Musk. He told them, "You can do anything you want if you raise enough money for me." That's what's happening here. The fossil fuel industry hates offshore wind. They hate solar, they hate any competition coming their way. What's even worse, though, Brian, is that these are emerging technologies and industries that are only going to grow. China and the European Union are going to benefit from that growth if we're shutting it down over here.

No one's saying we're going to shut gas down next week, but the bottom line is, gas is extraordinarily expensive, as was said by Linda, the existing infrastructure gets increasingly more expensive. We need to have renewables both in terms of affordability, but also in terms of public health and helping the planet.

Brian Lehrer: Actually, I will throw in one additional question, just very briefly, a fact question for you, Senator. What's the timeline here? When will we know if Governor Hochul revives these pipeline projects from the dead? How can New Yorkers have input if they want to, one way or another?

Senator Liz Krueger: We don't know exactly when a decision will be made because, again, they don't seem to be allowing for a comment period or public hearings. She has the ability through her agencies to, I think, at any moment, say yes to either or both pipelines. I would urge people who are opposed to these to absolutely contact her office, phone, emails, letters, telling her, "Do not do this. This is a major mistake for the state of New York that will live to haunt us all for decades."

Brian Lehrer: That's our Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show for this week. We thank New York State Senator Liz Krueger, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rich Schrader, New York government affairs director for the environmental group NRDC. Thank you both very much.

Rich Schrader: Thank you.

Senator Liz Krueger: Great.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.