[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, again, everyone. Now, our Climate Story of the Week which we do every Tuesday on the show. Last week, we talked about America's first large-scale offshore wind energy project now operating off the coast of Long Island about 30 miles out from Montauk on the East End. Today, we look at an effort by New York lawmakers to address what you might call the other side of building a renewable energy future at the state government policy level.

As things like wind projects get investments to go up, a bill in the legislature right now would take New York taxpayers' subsidies of fossil fuels down. What? New York taxpayers' subsidized fossil fuels? Aren't they profitable enough on their own? Never mind the climate impacts that they don't need any public funding? Let's find out. With us now, New York State Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon from Brooklyn. She introduced the Stop Climate Polluters Handout Act and was also a sponsor of a bill to close a loophole in the state's fracking ban, which we'll also touch on.

Assemblywoman Simon's district includes Dumbo, Carroll Gardens, Downtown Brooklyn down to Prospect Park, go across the Brooklyn Bridge in your inner district. Assemblymember Simon, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon: Well, thank you, Brian. It's a pleasure to be with you this morning.

Brian Lehrer: What's in the Stop Climate Polluters Handout bill?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, I think you asked the right question which is, what are we doing subsidizing fossil fuel industry when it's causing so much harm to our planet? We need to stop doing that, and so what we find is that there is about $1.6 billion that goes into the fossil fuel industry through various tax breaks, for example. Many of them can be eliminated. What this bill does is it would raise about $265 million in revenue if we stopped handing out that money to fossil fuel polluters. It targets corporations, for example, that are fossil fuel corporations but doesn't target mom-and-pop who needs a little help with their home heating bill.

Brian Lehrer: Can you get more specific about some of the specific tax breaks and for what kinds of fossil fuels and what kinds of contexts?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, one of the things we've looked at is the high-emission commercial airline fuels and the very low-grade shipping fuel called bunker fuels. The bunker fuels are the kinds of fuels that are used in large ships, for example, which often sit idling. They're not only using fossil fuels, but they're also a very tremendous greenhouse gas emitter which, of course, is one of the major problems in climate change. We're targeting them.

Obviously, we've, in a separate bill, targeted the operation of certain fracked gas infrastructure, but the other thing we're addressing here is the fact that somehow [unintelligible 00:03:26] taxes are being used to subsidize research and development into the fossil fuel industry to do more of the polluting. We believe that that is something that is completely untenable as a matter of public policy. As you pointed out, these are very, very wealthy corporations. These are huge industries. They doubled their income practically since 2020. Why are we doing that? They have plenty of money to operate. They don't need our tax subsidies.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, any questions for Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon from Brooklyn on our Climate Story of the Week about the Stop Climate Polluters Handout Act, which she sponsored? 212-433-WNYC. We're also going to get, as I said in the intro, to another bill that she's involved with, which would close a fracking loophole. Remember, fracking is supposed to be banned in New York State, but apparently, there's a way that some of it can go on still.

We may touch on one or two other things from the state budget negotiations. The new fiscal year begins next Monday, and there's still negotiations apparently on things like education funding and affordable housing. We may touch on those too, but basically, it's our Climate Story of the Week with the essential topic being the Stop Climate Polluters Handout Act. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text.

The kinds of subsidies you were just describing, were they implemented in the first place because there was a perception at one time that these were in the public interest, or was it always just a special interest there was a strength of fossil fuel companies to lobby for these tax breaks? Is there a benign origin story on any of these?

Jo Anne Simon: That's a very good question. I really don't know the answer to that. My sense is that it's a little bit of both. Certainly, when you were looking at-- you've talked about fracking natural gas, natural gas being better in most people's minds than, for example, oil. There was a lot of effort and certainly a lot of lobbying by fossil fuel industries to do fracking. Of course, fracking turned out to not be such a good thing environmentally. Now New York has banned that.

Of course, they're clever, they're very smart people, and that's how they came up with this approach of using carbon dioxide instead of those fracking the liquid that are those toxic water that is being used with fracking. They're using carbon dioxide to do that fracking job. That is what we targeted in the bill that just recently passed both houses. These are taxes that are things like sales and use taxes, the petroleum business tax. We're exempting them from large fossil fuel companies from paying those taxes, and that just doesn't make any sense.

We have climate goals that we passed in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and in order to achieve a goal, you have to do something. This is one of those very, very basic, we can do this, we can do it easily, and it will start making a dent in what we need to do to achieve our climate goals. We're really hopeful that the governor will get on board. The Senate put it in their one-house bill. The Assembly has it in their environmental section, broadly supporting the reduction of tax incentives to fossil fuel companies.

Brian Lehrer: You segued into the other bill, and I do have it right that these are separate bills, right? The one-

Jo Anne Simon: Yes, they are.

Brian Lehrer: -called the Stop Climate Polluters Handout bill about the tax incentives and the other one to close this fracking loophole. Again, people will remember that Governor Cuomo banned fracking statewide. I don't know if we're the only state to have done that, but I think we're one of few fracking for natural gas, that kind of drilling. Now it turns out as you were just describing that there is fracking going on involving what's called liquid carbon dioxide, and so the other bill that you're involved with is to close that. Could you remind people, what is fracking?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, hydraulic fracking was a way of basically-- very pressurized liquid would be a combination of various chemicals and water that would be in a very pressurized way used to break up the shale rock. In the breaking up of shale, there was carbon-- what is the word? I'm blanking now, but basically, a natural gas would be emitted through that fracking process, and they would have these elaborate fracking wells and whatnot that would go in. You see them all over the country. It was very high pressurized liquids that would be used to break up the shale.

When you are no longer able to use that hydraulic fracturing process, what in fact could also break up shale is this CO2 injection that poses really essentially all of the same risks to the water, health, and our climate.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Somehow what was believed to be a universal fracking ban in New York State involved fracking when water was used to create that pressure but not when liquid carbon dioxide was used to create it. Is that the loophole you're trying to close?

Jo Anne Simon: Yes, basically. Exactly. Fracking is not good. It has great dangers, great negative impacts to our climate and to our own health. What we're saying here is, you have to stop fracking no matter how you do it.

Brian Lehrer: That bill already passed both houses of the legislature. Is that correct?

Jo Anne Simon: Yes, it did.

Brian Lehrer: Is Governor Hochul on board to sign it?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, I don't know for a fact. I think that this is the kind of thing that the governor should be on board for because what we need to do is to follow the laws that we've passed. The governor is very supportive of reducing the impacts to climate that are caused by human beings. Obviously, there's been a great deal of support for offshore wind, for example, and many other things that we've been doing in our budgets and otherwise increasing the EV charging stations, et cetera, et cetera.

If you do the EV charging stations and you reduce the use of gas for people to drive but you're separately subsidizing the research and development to create things like, "Oh, let's do this carbon dioxide fracking," we're taking with one hand and giving with the other, and we need to stop doing that.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a question coming in about the other bill, the Stop Climate Polluters Handout bill, and it's coming from out of state. Cindy in Asheville, North Carolina. Cindy, you're on WNYC with New York State Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon from Brooklyn. Hi, Cindy.

Cindy: Hi. Yes, Brian, thanks for taking my call. I had a quick question for her, and that is, is it possible to quantify the dollar amount of tax breaks that the oil industry is getting right now for fossil fuel research? I can take that answer off the air.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. Yes, I think you did give that number before. Do you want to give it again? Because it is pretty eye-popping.

Jo Anne Simon: Yes. Overall, New York is subsidizing $1.6 billion of tax incentives to the fossil fuel industry some of which, of course, is used to reduce, for example, home heating assistance for seniors and people who are low-income users of that service as we transition. You don't transition overnight. You need to transition.

We are not hurting mom-and-pop, but we know that we can right now eliminate $265 million of tax incentives to the industry, to the corporations and recover that and use that, for example, to fund education, to fund childcare, to fund food, to fund home healthcare which has been an issue that we've been struggling with in the budget.

Brian Lehrer: Has that bill passed both houses of the legislature?

Jo Anne Simon: The Stop Climate Polluters [unintelligible 00:12:58] Handouts?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Jo Anne Simon: No, it has not. I will tell you one reason why is that it has an impact on budget, and so often, we try and do those things that are not just budget outlays but bringing in revenue in the context of the budget. We are really focusing on getting it in the budget. That is our first step. If we're not able to get it in the budget, then we will look at passing it otherwise, but because it has such budget implications, we really believe that the best place for this bill would be in the budget.

Brian Lehrer: Has Governor Hochul said she would sign that bill?

Jo Anne Simon: Not yet, [laughs] but that's what all of this negotiating is about. Obviously, these are things that are-- Many conversations are being had now, primarily at the staff and the very senior leadership levels, but this is something that is supported by both houses. The one bill, the fracking bill was passed by both houses. This is an approach that is supported by both houses. I am optimistic that the governor will see the wisdom in that approach and get on board.

Brian Lehrer: Are there fossil fuel lobbyists patrolling the halls of the State Capitol or patrolling your inboxes among members of the state legislature? Who are the opponents of this, and how are they trying to exert their influence?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, they haven't come to see me, [laughs] which is not a surprise, but of course, the industry is always looking to support the industry. One of the things you see are these groups that form that have fancy names that sound like they might be supportive of climate. In fact, you have to look at who's on the list.

There are various groups, New Yorkers for this, New Yorkers for that. Very often, they dress themselves up in happy language when in fact what they're doing really is to further the fossil fuel industry. Those groups are out there. They also have lobbyists that will meet with people and say, "We're just trying to clean this up this way." Those people are out there.

Brian Lehrer: A listener writes, "If they are using taxpayer money for research, can we redirect that research to green energy?"

Jo Anne Simon: Well, we certainly could, and that would be another thing we could do with this $265 million in revenue. Obviously, there are lots of things that we could use that money for. We could certainly turn it into support for industries that are doing that work of building the green economy. That would be consistent with the CLCPA, for example.

Brian Lehrer: Jean in the Catskills, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jean.

Jean: Hi, it's Jean.

Brian Lehrer: That's you, yes.

Jean: Hi, Brian. Good morning. Please, do we know in counties where proposed fracking in New York State is planned? We are in upstate New York, Catskill, Hudson area, Greene County. Is this in the western part of the state? We have never heard about fracking in the state. Does the speaker know by county what we are proposing?

Brian Lehrer: Good question.

Jo Anne Simon: I couldn't tell you county by county, but primarily where the hydraulic fracking was likely to go on is pretty much further west than you. Certainly, there's a lot of the Marcellus Shale in the Southern tier, for example.

Brian Lehrer: Finger Lakes area, around there?

Jo Anne Simon: Right.

Brian Lehrer: It's not happening in Carroll Gardens?

Jo Anne Simon: No, it is not. No. We have other issues. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: I guess. I just thought of another--

Jo Anne Simon: Take the Gowanus Canal, for example. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: We'll do that next week. Another possible irony, remind me-- Tell me if I'm remembering this right, have the state pension funds under the direction of the State Comptroller DiNapoli withdrawn their investments in fossil fuel companies? I'm pretty sure that's happened with the New York City pension funds. Has it also happened at the state level?

Jo Anne Simon: Yes. Now, whether they have withdrawn from absolutely everything yet, that is certainly what they are doing. They're in the process of doing that. They started that a couple of years ago.

Brian Lehrer: We're in a moment where the state, as a matter of policy, will not invest to try to make money for pensioners and such in fossil fuel companies, but as a matter of policy, we are subsidizing fossil fuel companies at the same time with tax breaks?

Jo Anne Simon: Right. I think the issue with tax breaks often is that once that gets passed, nobody's really paying that much attention to it. It's not that obvious because it's something that's been in existence for quite some time. I think there's a tendency to overlook those things. We don't even realize that we're doing it until much later when we say, "Why? What are we doing that for now? We no longer need to do that."

Brian Lehrer: We've been having this conversation in the context of our Climate Story of the Week, but I want to tack on one other thing that's unrelated because we are in the home stretch of the state budget negotiations with a new fiscal year starting next Monday, April 1st. A lot of major policies are in play always this time of year. I want to ask you about one in particular that I see is very contentious, and that's about a change to the education funding formula for school districts around the state that a lot of districts are concerned about.

I actually want to play, to set this up, part of a video that the governor's office released on what sounds like a progressive change to how wealthier school districts and less wealthy ones get funded. This clip compares two districts called A and B.

Narrator: School District A is in a wealthy area. On top of state funding, it can also raise millions of dollars from local property taxes. Most districts even benefited from tax increases in their area during the last three years of record state funding. This means School District A has been able to put millions of dollars away for a rainy day while still offering a wide variety of electives and extracurricular activities to its students, a population that has actually been in steady decline in recent years.

School District B is in a working-class community with lower property values, so it's tougher to support education through taxes or fundraising. In fact, the district recently had to cut a few after-school clubs and merge its sports programs with nearby districts. They have no money set aside for a rainy day and their student population is growing. State funding is vital to this school district's operations.

[end of video playback]

Brian Lehrer: That's from a video that the governor's office has on their website, and that sounds like a good thing. If there's limited money to go around, let's start concentrating it more in the districts that don't get as much locally into their school districts from the local property taxes. Is that the way we should think about the education funding debate that's going on this week?

Jo Anne Simon: Well, I think there are a couple of things that-- That video is a bit simplistic, and that is that there has been a decline in enrollment in certain areas, but the money that is in reserve in a lot of places is actually dedicated to particular things. It's not necessarily as unencumbered as it would be indicated. I think the biggest challenge that we have as a legislature is the fact that the governor proposes to do it in a way that would be a real shock to the system.

Let's say you have a declining enrollment, and instead of 26 kids in a class, you now have 23. Well, if you multiply that out by several classes in that school, you might have a sizeable decrease. The fact is, you still need a teacher to pay them the same amount of money in that class of 23 because you can't just combine them, because then you're going to end up with a class of 56 kids, assuming you have two at the same grade level. It's not as easily done as would be the way it's presented in that video.

The other thing is, obviously, foundation aid, which we finally fully funded last year, but that foundation aid formula is really 25 years old. What is in the foundation aid formula that needs to be there? For example, what are we missing? What are we not capturing in that formula? What are we capturing that we maybe no longer need to capture? There's quite a bit of study that I think needs to be done to figure out, what is an appropriate foundation aid formula? How are we funding our schools? What are we doing besides just talking about property taxes, which is a very significant issue?

The reality is that the way we're calculating this leaves something to be desired, but until we actually study it, we're not going to know precisely what that is. It's like the kind of thing where everybody has an opinion, and maybe everybody is correct, but everybody thinks that their idea is the right idea. We just don't know that yet. I think one of the things that we're looking at is certainly both houses of the legislature are not supportive of the governor's proposal. Clearly, this is something that will be negotiated.

It seems to me it's the kind of thing that we need to negotiate to happen over a period of time that gives us the time to figure out what actually the formula should be, and then how do you face something like that in? Those are, I'm sure, topics of discussion at this juncture because there's no way you can just do what it is that the governor proposed as rapidly as she proposed it without an eye to what are really driving those costs. Wealth is certainly one of them, but you have to pay the teacher who's teaching 23 kids the same amount you pay the teacher who's teaching 26 kids.

Brian Lehrer: There we leave it with at least one big issue yet to be resolved by Monday. It sounds like there's a long way to go before you resolve that issue, but you only have six more days. We will obviously follow that, with so many implications for New York City, which doesn't fund its schools through property taxes but is dependent on state aid for a good deal of funding like any school district around the state. We will follow that and all the other issues. We thank Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon from Brooklyn for talking about that and for the most part in this segment, our Climate Story of the Week. Thank you so much.

Jo Anne Simon: Thank you, Brian, and remember, hope springs eternal.

Brian Lehrer: Ha. Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

Copyright © 2024 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.