From: Anthony Kownack, Corning Place Communications

Subject: Weekly Articles of Interest (New York Propane Gas Association)

Date: March 22, 2024

Bill,

Below, please find a compilation of articles, issued this week, that may be of interest to you. Articles
are also hyperlinked within each headline.

Thank you,

Anthony

Weekly Articles of Interest Include:

• FACT CHECK: Are Gas Grills Really Being Outlawed in New York?
• State Senate passes NY HEAT Act, other utilities legislation
• Propane can help NY reach its school bus clean-energy mandates
• Should NY adopt facility-specific emissions caps? Groups’ report says yes.
• Guest Op-Ed: NY HEAT Act bad for New York
• O’Mara, Senate Republicans join business and labor leaders in opposition to ‘NY Heat
Act’ (WATCH)

FACT CHECK: Are Gas Grills Really Being Outlawed in New York?
101.5 WPDH
March 20, 2024

A viral news story has been circulating that claims New York is considering a ban on propane grills.
Is this truth or fiction?

It's getting harder and harder to figure out what's real news and what's not. Nowadays people are
either too busy or too lazy to actually read anything, and since anyone can post whatever they like
online, uninformed or lazy writers can unintentionally spread false information. When people read
a clumsy headline and don't bother to venture into the rest of the story before commenting on it
dangerous things can happen.

Panic Spreads After Story Suggests Gas Grills Could be Outlawed in New York
Just as the spring grilling season kicks off, a story that hints at a possible propane tank ban in New
York has begun to go viral. My news feed has been plagued with various versions of this story that
links a new law passed in California with a theory that gas grills are destined to be outlawed in New
York.

The story begins with an explanation of New York's controversial law banning gas appliances in
new construction. Under the law, natural gas stoves and furnaces would be forbidden to be
installed in new buildings as early as 2026, but the law still allows those with existing gas service in
their homes to keep on using these appliances.

An abundance of misinformation is being spread concerning this law. Some of it has come from
opponents of the legislation who fear that propane tanks will also be targeted by legislators. This
fear was ramped up after California successfully passed a law banning single-use propane cylinders.
Several articles suggest that New York could follow suit and ban outdoor grilling.

California Propane Ban is Misunderstood

The California law specifically bans the sale of single-use propane cylinders starting in 2028.
However, this only goes for those small, green propane canisters used for camping grills. While the
sale of these cylinders will be banned in four years, the use of them in California will still be legal, so
those purchased in other states will still be fine to use. It's possible that a refillable version of these
small canisters could also be developed to get around the law.

It's important to note that this law is just in California and does not include refillable propane tanks
used for outdoor gas grills. Some people are suggesting that New York could follow California's
lead, but even if that is the case it will have absolutely no affect on the Weber grill you use in your
backyard.

Governor Hochul's Office Confirms New York Will Not Ban Gas Grills
WIBX reached out to Governor Hochul in December and specifically asked about a possible ban on
gas grills. Her office replied quickly with confirmation that the state is not pursuing any bans on
outdoor propane or charcoal grills.

So, before you start angrily typing away at some clumsily written headline you see on Facebook, be
sure to read the story first and make sure you know what the facts are. While there are plenty of
things to criticize New York politicians about, ruining your cookout isn't one of them.

State Senate passes NY HEAT Act, other utilities legislation

Luke Parsnow
State of Politics
March 20, 2024

The New York state Senate on Tuesday passed legislation aimed to make utility bills easier
to pay for ratepayers, including the NY Heat Act, which aligns utility regulation with state
climate justice and emission reduction targets.
The NY HEAT Act, which passed 40-22, had been approved by the state Senate last year but
the Assembly and Gov. Kathy Hochul have yet to find agreement on all variables of the
legislation. Hochul included key provisions in her 2025 state budget, but not the entire
piece of legislation.
The bill is intended to limit costs to customers as New York state transitions away from
natural gas while protecting them from predatory practices by capping utility costs at 6%
of income for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers to prevent utility companies from
hiking rates.
“With gas utilities raising rates across the state in order to double down on outdated fossil
gas infrastructure, it's never been clearer that the status quo is not only unsustainable, it's
also unaffordable,” Democratic state Sen. Liz Kruger, who sponsore d the legislation, said in
a statement.
The other bills the chamber passed would:

• Require the Public Service Commission to consider the economic impact of utility rates and
charges when evaluating utilities’ proposed rate changes
• Direct the Department of State and Public Service Commission to study and report upon
disclosure by utilities to credit reporting agencies regarding late payments
• Require electric corporations, gas corporations, steam corporations and water-works
corporations to use standardized return on equity calculations set by the Public Service
Commission to prevent unjustifiable rate increases
• Direct utilities to file with the Public Service Commission a model procedure for calculating
estimated utility bills and to use more actual meter readings
• Establish civil penalties for utilities that knowingly make false material statements to the
Public Service Commission in relation to a rate-making proceeding
• Require social services districts to automatically re-enroll eligible people or households for
the low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) if they remain eligible

Propane can help NY reach its school bus clean-energy mandates

Bill Overbaugh
Newsday
March 18, 2024

A group of Long Island state senators and Assembly members recently asked Gov. Kathy Hochul to
either fully fund or rescind the state mandate that all new buses sold in the state be zero-emission
by 2027 and every bus on the road be zero-emission by 2035. The reason? The exorbitant cost of
electric buses, which run upward of $450,000, and the impact that will have on taxpayers. Though
electric buses run clean and quiet, their extremely high costs place big burdens on school district
budgets, which can mean less money for what matters most: educating children.

The smart move would be to include ultra-low-emission propane buses as part of the mandate.
Propane can drive both environmental and fiscal responsibility from the statehouse down to
individual districts.

It would cost as much as $20 billion to transition all 45,000 of New York’s school buses to electric,
according to some estimates. It’s doubtful the state could fully fund that amount, though some
funding is being made available for electric buses through the federal Clean School Bus Program.
Time is quickly passing for diesel school buses. The fumes, noise, and high maintenance costs to
keep diesel “clean” have created an unacceptable situation for students. Repeatedly exposing them
to that thick, black smoke is irresponsible.
Propane buses virtually eliminate that smoke, and dramatically reduce nitrogen oxides and carbon
dioxide, which can lead to ailments like asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems.

The operating cost of propane buses is half the cost of diesel buses. More significantly, a school
district can purchase three propane buses for every one electric bus. With virtually every school
district in New York managing ever-tightening budgets, the savings provides the best of both
worlds — cleaner air and cost savings.

Plus, it takes mere minutes to refuel a propane bus, compared to hours for recharging an electric
bus.

Propane buses are better for our children, better for our communities, and better for the
environment. Everyone deserves access to clean, affordable and reliable energy, as well as clean air
to breathe. Propane provides all of that right now and is easily implemented.

The “electrify everything” school bus mindset contains inconsistencies. Some 60% of the U.S.
electric grid is powered by coal and natural gas, so if one considers the whole emissions equation,
propane buses are simply cleaner. As demand on the grid increases, in part due to the increase of
electric passenger vehicles, so will reliance on coal and natural gas, at least in the short term,
leading to greater environmental impact, especially in rural areas where power plants are often
located.

More than 22,000 propane school buses operate nationwide, transporting 1.3 million kids to school
in 49 states. In New York, that includes 243 buses used by school districts. Seven school districts in
Suffolk and Nassau counties currently utilize about 60 propane school buses to transport students.
Propane buses have a range of up to 400 miles on a single tank, compared to 130 miles for a fully
charged electric bus, important in rural areas and for after-school activities, especially on frigid
days; electric buses lose up to a third of their range when temperatures drop below 25 degrees
Fahrenheit.

All New York communities stand to benefit substantially from propane bus implementation. By
embracing its benefits, Hochul and state lawmakers will ultimately achieve the twin goals of
environmental and fiscal responsibility.

This guest essay reflects the views of Bill Overbaugh, executive director of the New York Propane Gas
Association.

Should NY adopt facility-specific emissions caps? Groups’ report says yes.

Marie French
Politico
March 18, 2024

ALBANY, New York — A new analysis finds that regulations to reduce emissions from each power
plant and install sector-specific pollution limits would provide more benefits to disadvantaged
communities than the policy Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration is considering.
The analysis released Monday by Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group, and the
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance focuses on potential designs of a cap-and-trade style
program being developed by Hochul’s administration.

The latest report from the ongoing project highlights how capping emissions from specific sectors
— such as buildings, transportation and electricity — instead of one cap for the entire economy
could change where pollution reductions occur, shift how costs impact consumers and influence
what technology is adopted. The potential emissions effects of facility-specific limits on power
plants were also modeled.

Why it matters: The findings showed that with facility-specific and sector-specific caps, harmful
particulate matter emissions from power plants within one mile of disadvantaged communities
were reduced on average by 89 percent in 2030 compared to a 78 percent reduction with a single
cap across all parts of the economy.

State officials have indicated facility-specific limits for polluters near or in disadvantaged
communities may be considered outside of the “cap-and-invest” program.

The state’s climate law — which mandates greenhouse gasses be cut 40 percent from 1990 levels
by 2030 — also requires agencies to not disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities,
which have suffered from higher rates of pollution, and that they prioritize reducing co-pollutants
impacting them.

Environmental justice groups including NYC-EJA are skeptical that a cap-and-trade program that
allows unlimited trading can ensure pollution from sources impacting their communities will be
reduced. They’ve pushed for limits on trading, including caps for specific sectors and reduction
requirements for polluters to ensure their communities benefit.

“While a cap-trade-and-invest program can help us meet our emissions, it can’t be the primary tool,
and in and of itself may not help us meet our emission targets or ensure we’re complying with [the
climate law’s requirements of] making sure we’re not disproportionately burdening disadvantaged
communities,” said NYC-EJA’s deputy director Eunice Ko. “So what we need to do is add safeguards
and backstops.”

More results: The latest research doesn’t analyze air-quality effects of these different policies,
which is expected to be the subject of the next report. That will provide more information about the
effects of these shifts in emissions driven by sector-specific caps and facility-specific limits.

“The locational effects for the residential and transportation sectors are most effectively tackled in
the air quality analysis,” said Molly Robertson, senior research associate with Resources for the
Future and an author of the report.

Robertson said the statewide emissions reduction was “relatively modest” between the full cap-
and-trade model and the sector-specific limits.

The analysis includes the electric sector in the cap, which state policymakers are considering
leaving out altogether. Ko said there’s also additional modeling being done on how that proposal
would affect emissions in disadvantaged communities.
The research finds that facility-specific limits for the power sector would lead to lower co-pollutant
emissions on average from power plants near disadvantaged communities. The average reduction
for particulate matter (PM 2.5) with sector-specific caps only is about 80 percent in 2030 compared
to the 89 percent average reduction when facility-specific caps are added.

“We’re seeing greater emission reductions when you add these [facility-specific] caps and we also
are seeing it benefiting primarily disadvantaged communities,” Ko said.

Overall, power-sector emissions are higher in the scenario with sector-specific caps where trading
across sectors is prohibited compared to the unrestricted trading option. That’s partly to keep the
cost of allowances and thus electricity in that scenario low.

The state’s analysis of cap-and-trade limited the price of allowances to pollute and limited the
amount invested to assist consumers in transitioning to lower-emissions technologies to two-thirds
of the money raised. The group’s research, however, assumed an additional revenue source so
investments would exceed what was raised by between $500 million and $1 billion annually.

Environmental justice advocates and other groups have proposed using revenue from taxes on high
earners and a charge based on historical pollution from fossil fuel companies as potential
alternative sources for funding.

As a result of the added investments, the group estimated the program would lead to lower costs
for consumers than the state expects from the program.

The sector-specific limits, the group determined, would encourage increased adoption of heat
pumps at an incremental additional cost for heating fuels.

The report presents the results for caps to achieve a 65 percent reduction in the residential building
sector, 21 percent from the transportation sector and 88 percent from the power sector. Higher
reductions from the transportation sector were examined but resulted in very high gasoline prices,
according to the research.

“We were tinkering to see with different targets how that would affect price across the different
sectors,” Ko said. “We just landed on what we felt were not shocking, absolutely politically not
viable numbers.”

NYSERDA and DEC still plan to analyze a similar “command and control” scenario with no trading
and sector-specific caps. That will be shared as part of the alternatives assessment required when
the draft regulations are issued later this year.

What’s next: The Department of Environmental Conservation is taking input on the cap-and-trade
program as it plans to release its draft regulations this year.

Guest Op-Ed: NY HEAT Act bad for New York

Senator Bill Weber
Mid Hudson Nes
March 17, 2024
Activism is and always should be a part of politics because it leads to discussions of new public
policy topics and can help to accelerate needed societal change.

The problem with some activists, however, is that they can go too far in pushing out of touch,
expensive solutions that end up hurting the very people they purport to be trying to help. Such is
the case with the so called “New York Home Energy Affordable Transition Act (HEAT ACT) as
proposed in the legislature and the ironically named “affordable gas transition act” included in
Governor Hochul’s budget.

Rather than look for ways to enhance and protect the kind of jobs that help build New York’s
middle class, this legislation puts those families right in the cross hairs by threatening their long-
term employment and raising their utility bills. The bill directs the State’s Public Service
commission to encourage a transition away from natural gas, discontinue portions of the natural
gas system and thereby force consumers to convert their houses and businesses to electricity.

The last thing we need is a heavy-handed Legislature and Governor egged on by out of touch
activists to impose some kind of one-size fits all system that won’t work, can’t be easily adjusted
and hurts cash strapped ratepayers.

Homes and businesses who are forced to switch to electric, will face $20-$50,000 in new costs
mandated by the State of New York. There is absolutely no mechanism in this bill for working
families to recover even one penny of that cost.

The bills also claims to help struggling New Yorkers by capping energy costs at 6% of income for
anyone at or below 80% of the area median income. The problem? The rest of us who aren’t
covered by the cap will simply see higher bills to make up the difference-and that’s most of us!

To add insult to injury, this legislation would get rid of the “100-foot rule” which requires utility
companies to connect customers to a gas line for free when they are within 100 feet of an existing
main. Activists call this a “huge cost to customers and a huge subsidy to the gas industry” but is that
really accurate? Small businesses, which are the heart of New York’s economy, benefit from this
rule, and saving the cost to hook up to gas helps them create more jobs and help our economy. In
addition, thousands of workers who currently service our gas system will be put on the
unemployment line! This is truly outrageous.

Reducing emissions is something everyone broadly agrees on, but there Is no need to throw the
baby out with the bathwater while hurting workers, consumers and businesses alike. I strongly
urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the inclusion of these ideas in the final State Budget.