Will Barclay, R-Pulaski, represents New York’s 120th Assembly District and is the Leader of the Assembly Republican Conference.
When looking at the recently proposed budgets, especially the plan to ban the use of natural gas for heating and cooking, I cannot help but recall Ronald Reagan’s joke about the nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Unfortunately, after seeing the proposed budgets of the governor, Assembly and Senate –all of which include a ban on natural gas use in new construction – I am left to believe that our political leaders actually think they are helping by taking away our choice with respect to the heating systems, appliances, and boilers we put in our homes. Let me be clear: these budget proposals are not helpful.
With respect to the budget process, we should not blindly rush forward plans to ban natural gas in newly constructed buildings. There will be time for further policy debate after the budget is finalized.
While individual and collective efforts to fight climate change and reduce our carbon footprint is something everyone should get behind, a ban on natural gas in new construction is premature as there are a host of challenges that remain unresolved.
These proposed budgets include an electrification mandate for new buildings. This is an anti-free market effort to strip consumers of their right to choose the energy source that best fits their needs. The state should not develop policies that rely on only one fuel source; that is the epitome of putting too many eggs in one basket.
A close examination of the proposals reveals pitfalls and raises questions that need to be addressed before turning to an outright prohibition. For example, where is all the electricity going to come from to power the many new buildings that won’t have the option to choose oil, propane or gas for heating, cooking and hot water? And this challenge is further complicated as more electric vehicles are purchased, which will increase electric demand.
We all have high hopes for advancements in solar, wind and battery power sources. However, for the foreseeable future natural gas will remain an important resource that can be used to balance intermittent renewable resources while facilitating the integration of wind and solar generation.
And then there’s cost. What effect will a fossil fuel prohibition have on our economy, the housing market and the cost of living? Cost, especially in these inflationary times, is a vital consideration as it directly and immediately impacts consumers, and almost certainly disproportionately affects lower-income individuals and communities. Carbon reduction strategies must evaluate these impacts and offer solutions that minimize economic disruption while maximizing the benefits.
None of this is to say that meeting our carbon reduction goals is impossible, or that fossil fuels will forever be the primary source of our energy. But practical, unanswered questions remain.
We must keep all options on the table, including the possibility of energy-efficient, low-carbon buildings powered by an innovative combination of natural gas, nuclear, renewable energy, hydrogen and more. This is the type of all-of-the-above energy strategy that New Yorkers should embrace to keep costs affordable for property owners while keeping the state on track to meet its emissions reduction goals.
Unfortunately, the government intervention proposed in the budget with respect to natural gas is concerning. If the government really wants to help, it will not take away our freedom to choose how we heat our homes and produce hot water and instead will allow market forces and consumer choice to be the determining factors.
Opposing view: Don’t be gaslighted by foes of electrification (Guest Opinion by Carole Resnick & Anshul Gupta)