A new report issued by our Center for Cost Effective Government confirms that progressive policies implemented by New York’s Legislature designed to tackle climate change have caused energy rates in the state to skyrocket, with few environmental benefits.

In fact, these policies increased electric bills by roughly 50 percent in the six years since their implementation.

In 2019, Albany enacted a sweeping law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, imposing mandates seeking a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It also calls for 100 percent renewable electricity use by 2040.

But recently, New York’s government has been quietly telling the utilities to slow-walk the decommissioning of gas-fired power plants. And after the November election, Gov. Kathy Hochul officially retreated from the unrealistic mandate requiring electric heat in new buildings until a lawsuit on the issue concludes.

The state’s progressive policies included numerous initiatives many now regret, including shutting down nuclear plants; refusing to frack in New York; refusing to approve natural-gas pipelines; requiring all new buildings be heated with electricity; imposing carbon penalties on utilities, passing costs to consumers; and mandating that all cars be electric by 2035.

Ironically, New York’s carbon footprint wound up being worse after passage of this bill, while electric rates soared. Curtailing natural gas had devastating consequences, both economically and environmentally. It was the transition from dirtier coal and oil to cleaner natural gas that dropped U.S. greenhouse emissions by 14 percent from 2005 to 2019, while emissions were increasing worldwide.

Rates are slated to increase further, with the New York State Electric & Gas company saying it will charge 23.7 percent more in 2026, while National Grid is seeking increases that could raise bills upstate by $600 a year.

And Con Edison is seeking increases that would increase average gas and energy bills more than $150 higher than in 2020.

This reduced supply is exacerbated by the enormous energy required for the A.I. revolution. Large companies at the forefront of A.I. innovation put immense strain on the grid. A.I. data centers are becoming large energy users, outpacing even electric vehicles in their power demand growth.

Overly ambitious policy initiatives to shut down traditional power generation and replace it with less-reliable wind and solar energy have resulted in significant negative consequences worldwide. In Germany, an optimistic energy transition plan involved shutting down nuclear plants. In 2011, Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors generated over 33 percent of the country’s electricity. Their shutdown led to a return to fossil fuels. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign energy sources actually increased.

These extreme policies have been mirrored in California, resulting in electric costs that are roughly 50 percent higher than the national average and gasoline costs that are 47 percent above the average.

The typical residential customer in New Jersey, which also promulgated extreme green policies, saw an increase of 17 to 20 percent last year. One resident of Clark, N.J., claimed that her bill rose from $174 in June to over $300 in July — this despite New Jersey’s Public Service Electric & Gas having told her to expect an increase of 17 percent.

Even once-touted wind projects are losing their luster when they come under greater scrutiny. According to NY Energy Ratings, “Developers are looking for a way to pay for the mounting costs of new wind energy projects. They have even asked the [Public Service Commission] to increase New York electric rates.” This is estimated to result in an increase of 4 percent, or $4.67 per month for ratepayers. Some projects are costing double what they were expected to.

Billionaire Bill Gates, who previously sided with the climate doomsday faction, has tempered his position, noting that the trillions of dollars being funneled to climate initiatives could be better spent relieving worldwide poverty.

Are you a better person if you pay an arm and a leg for extreme green policies that will have little impact on reducing the carbon footprint decades down the road? Or is it more cost-effective to concentrate those funds on saving lives today, via better health care and economic opportunity, while simultaneously investing in innovations that can provide cheaper, cleaner energy over a rational, gradual period of time?