By Assemblymember Carrie Woerner (AD 113) and Assemblymember John T. McDonald III, RPh (AD 108)

 

When the New York legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) in 2019, sweeping emissions targets were paired with firm deadlines written into law. During debate, however, the bill’s sponsor acknowledged those goals were meant to be “aspirational.” Merriam-Webster defines aspirational as a strong desire to achieve ambitious objectives. Few would disagree with the aspiration itself: reducing emissions and expanding low-emission energy in New York’s power mix remains an important goal. The question today is whether the timelines embedded in law still reflect reality.

Seven years later, the energy landscape has shifted dramatically.

Supply-chain disruptions that began during the pandemic continue to affect the energy sector. Electricity demand is also rising quickly. Advanced manufacturing, data infrastructure, and economic development are increasing industrial power consumption. At the same time, public policy has encouraged widespread adoption of electric vehicles, electric yard equipment, heat pumps, and a growing number of rechargeable consumer devices.

Together, these trends are placing unprecedented demands on New York’s electric grid—already the oldest infrastructure of its kind in the nation.

Meanwhile, the closure of nuclear and natural gas plants has reduced the supply of reliable baseload power, and new renewable installations have not fully replaced that lost capacity. The resulting imbalance between supply and demand has contributed to rising electricity prices and growing concerns about long-term grid reliability.

The reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law. State officials have warned that achieving those targets could impose significant costs on upstate ratepayers—costs that may ultimately prove unaffordable.

Acknowledging these challenges does not mean abandoning ambition. The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions.

It can—and it must.

One concept helps explain why: capacity factor. Capacity factor measures how much electricity a power plant actually produces compared with the maximum it could generate if it ran continuously at full output. In practical terms, it reflects how reliably a resource contributes power to the grid.

Different energy sources vary widely. Nuclear plants operate roughly 94 percent of the time. Hydropower averages about 35 to 45 percent. Natural gas plants typically run 40 to 60 percent of the time, while oil-fired peaker plants may run as little as 5 to 15 percent. Offshore wind operates around 40 to 50 percent of the time, while utility-scale solar in New York produces power only about 18 to 22 percent of the time.

Ensuring that the lights turn on whenever someone flips a switch requires a balanced mix of resources, including a significant share with high capacity factors. At the same time, that mix must produce fewer emissions. For that reason, Governor Kathy Hochul’s “all of the above” strategy—with renewed emphasis on nuclear power—is both sensible and necessary.

Nuclear energy provides consistent, carbon-free electricity around the clock. But building new reactors takes time. Even small modular reactors can take close to a decade to permit and construct, and they require substantial investment and skilled workers. By contrast, utility-scale solar can be deployed more quickly and cheaply—but it generates power only when sunlight is available.

If New York hopes to move closer to its long-term decarbonization goals while maintaining reliability, it must invest more heavily in high-capacity-factor resources like nuclear energy while recognizing the limits of technologies that contribute less consistently to grid stability.

Still, nuclear power alone will not solve the problem.

Transmission infrastructure must grow alongside new generation and rising demand. A recent Times Union article, “Texas is lapping NY in building renewable energy,” highlighted how other states have succeeded in expanding renewable capacity. Texas now has roughly six times more installed solar capacity than New York. On a day in April 2025, its 35 gigawatts of installed solar generated 26.7 gigawatts of electricity—a capacity factor approaching 75 percent.

That progress did not happen by accident. Texas first expanded transmission infrastructure and then added renewable generation where the grid could support it. In New York, the process has often occurred in reverse: new generation has been added while transmission upgrades lag behind.

The CLCPA and its accompanying Scoping Plan also take a relatively narrow view of the technologies allowed to meet climate goals. Buildings and vehicles must be electrified, electricity must largely come from wind and solar, and heating and cooling must be electric or geothermal.

But technological progress rarely follows a single path.

After decades in the technology sector and running a health care business, we have great confidence in the power of innovation—especially when policymakers leave room for it. Expanding the range of technologies that qualify under New York’s climate strategy would allow the state to benefit from breakthroughs already underway.

New battery chemistries that avoid the volatility and supply-chain challenges of lithium-ion are entering commercialization. Carbon-capture systems are reducing emissions from industrial facilities. Alternative fuels such as biodiesel and green hydrogen can lower emissions in heavy transportation and aviation. Grid-enhancing technologies can increase transmission efficiency, allowing the system to deliver more power using existing infrastructure.

And if history is any guide, the next generation of solutions is already being developed.

By broadening the CLCPA framework to include emerging technologies—both those available today and those still on the horizon—New York can make steady progress toward decarbonization without sacrificing reliability or affordability.

The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.

The English playwright John Heywood wrote in 1538 that “Rome wasn’t built in a day, but they were laying bricks every hour.” Climate policy should follow the same principle. Rather than chasing deadlines that grow less realistic with each passing year, New York should focus on building a cleaner energy system piece by piece—steady progress, practical choices, and innovation guiding every step.