This week Governor Hochul will deliver her State of the State address. Like her predecessor Andrew Cuomo, who first broke with tradition, her speech will not be delivered in the state Capitol, but in a performing arts venue contained within the Empire State Plaza, a complex of government buildings and small businesses. And her message will be delivered the first full week of the 2025 legislative session, not on its first day.

The governor’s State of the State is a requirement of the job. The state Constitution demands that “The governor shall communicate by message to the legislature at every session the condition of the state and recommend such matters to it as he or she shall judge expedient.”

In modern times the State of the State speech is delivered with much of the pomp found in the State of the Union address given by the President. The State of the State is delivered before a joint session of the state Senate and the state Assembly and is covered by media outlets across the state. The speech is typically delivered at the beginning of the legislative session and offers the governor’s vision and her plans to make the state better. The speech often runs for an hour or so and is accompanied by a detailed policy book that outlines the governor’s initiatives.

This year’s State of the State will likely touch on a full range of issues. Potential topics include how to fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the downstate mass transit systems; reforming how the state funds K-12 education; and how to do so in the shadow of a new – and more fiscally hostile – Administration in Washington develops its own budget.

That said, State of the State addresses are more poetry than prose. The details of the governor’s plans will come into focus when she releases her budget, not so much in her address. Instead, the governor uses both the State of the State and the days just prior to it to hammer home a theme and build public support for her agenda. This year is “affordability.”

The governor has already unveiled proposals that underpin her “affordability” message. Of course, there are things a state government can do to make life more affordable for its residents. Generally, however, the biggest cost drivers are largely outside the control of state government and more the result of national or global policies or events.

Take for example, the issue of insurance. Insurance is largely regulated at the state level, but costs from one part of the nation can impact companies’ bottom lines and thus impact rates in another.

The costs from the rapidly worsening climate are a good example. We have all been transfixed by the wildfires devastating swaths of Los Angeles. These massive, out-of-control blazes are now burning their way into suburban areas with no sign of letting up.

In California, the mounting losses from communities being burned to the ground and the resulting financial losses to insurers have resulted in the market drying up for homeowners looking for coverage. The insurance market has gotten so bad that California’s insurance companies have dropped hundreds of thousands of policyholders across the state in recent years citing the increasing risk and severity of wind-driven wildfires attributed to climate change.

It is now being reported that those losses will impact New York’s insurance premiums. The reason is the result of the arcane way the insurance industry operates. Insurance companies buy insurance to help cover the costs of unexpected large claims. That coverage – called reinsurance – has been getting more and more expensive as climate disasters have increased across the nation. As disasters mount, the cost of reinsurance goes up too. Thus, driving up premiums in states that are not directly impacted by a specific disaster.

Of course, every state gets plenty of disasters. One does not have to look far for ones that have hit New York. The first half of November was among the 20 driest such periods on record. That dryness increased the likelihood of wildfires occurring – and they did. New York City had brush fires of its own in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Wildfires have not been the only bizarre environmental events experienced by New Yorkers. The National Weather Service documented that 32 tornadoes touched down in New York this year. That’s the most since tornadoes were first recorded in the state in 1950.

Yet, the fossil fuel industries are advancing their opposition to New York’s moves toward “green” energy. Big Oil and their allies have embarked on their own “affordability” campaign to undermine the state’s science-based climate goals, assailing them as “ignorant,” “radical,” and “unaffordable.” This campaign is just the latest in the decades-long efforts to block climate protection policies.

Climate catastrophes will make the insurance business more costly – costs they’ll look to pass on to policyholders. As a result, New Yorkers have to hunker down, demand that the state move away from burning fossil fuels – which are driving the climate disasters – and prepare for higher costs that have little to do with Governor Hochul’s plans. Remember, when it comes to climate, insurance “unaffordability” is not the result of expensive state government, it is the result of the malignant advocacy of Big Oil and its stooges.

New York should strive to be more affordable, but it shouldn’t do so in a way that sacrifices the costs of generations to come.

Lawmakers return to Albany this week for the start of a new two-year session. In addition to orienting some new members, the Legislature will tackle some of the big issues of the day. And while the legislative session could have a big impact, what will be happening in New York’s courts could be also hugely consequential.

That’s because this week also begins the final saga of former Governor Cuomo’s $5 million book deal. The book was written during the early days of the COVID pandemic – a time when Cuomo was lauded for his daily pandemic briefings.

At that time, the former governor negotiated a multi-million-dollar book deal in order to tell his story on New York’s handling of the devastating pandemic. The then-ethics agency’s staff approved the deal on the condition that Cuomo did not use public resources to write the book. Subsequent investigations documented that the former governor did, in fact, use public resources. When the ethics agency began its procedure to possibly force the former governor to give back the book deal payday’s proceeds, Mr. Cuomo sued.

This week, the state’s highest court – the Court of Appeals – will hear oral arguments about the former governor challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s ethics law.

Some background. The former governor was widely praised for his communication of how government and the public should handle the unprecedented threat from the virus. At the peak of his popularity, the former governor pitched a book deal to a publisher.

The reason the former governor needed ethics approval was because he was a full-time public servant. Full-time employees of the executive branch must get approval to “moonlight” in order to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest and that the work is done off hours. The New York Governor has the highest salary of any governor and has free access to the governor’s mansion and other benefits. Thus, any request to obtain outside income must be carefully scrutinized and monitored.

At that time, the ethics staff approved the book deal – without bringing the question to the ethics agency’s commissioners. However, the approval stated that the governor could not use public resources in writing the book.

It was that provision that the then-ethics agency, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), investigated and found had been violated by the former governor. JCOPE had hired an outside law firm to review the situation and that firm agreed with the agency’s previous conclusion: that Governor Cuomo “misused the power and authority of his office to create, market and promote for enormous personal profit a work that not only was derivative of his official duties but could only have been brought into existence and completed on schedule through the . . . assistance of a group of Executive Chamber and other state officials.”

JCOPE concluded that the former governor had violated the agreement and had to again either request approval or pay the money back to the state. However, soon thereafter the entity was disbanded and replaced under legislation advanced by the current Governor Hochul.

The new ethics agency, the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (COELIG), decided to investigate the JCOPE conclusion that Cuomo had violated the book deal agreement. It was that renewed investigation that the former governor is trying to block in court. Cuomo is not challenging the investigation directly; instead he is directly attacking the legality of the new ethics agency itself and doing so in order to stymie the ethics agency’s look into the book deal.

The former governor has, so far, been successful. A state Supreme Court judge found that the ethics agency is indeed unconstitutionally constructed and blocked it from further investigating the book deal. That decision said that the ethics agency’s independence from the governor violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers principle. The state appealed and the appellate court also ruled in Mr. Cuomo’s favor. The state is now challenging that decision before the state’s highest court.

The implications for New Yorkers go beyond whether the former governor can keep the $5 million. There is now a bigger question: The courts have ruled that the governor does not have the authority to cede her own power, in this case to an “independent” ethics watchdog.

To date, the courts have ruled that the state Constitution mandates that any agency established within the executive branch must be controlled by the governor’s authority. Thus, since the current ethics commission contains only three of eleven appointees of the governor, it is not fully under her control. As a result, the courts have so far found that the ethics commission is unconstitutional (and cannot investigate the former governor’s book deal).

Moreover, any entity within the executive branch must be controlled by the governor’s authority. Under this legal theory, all gubernatorial appointees must be directly chosen by the governor and there can be no executive entity that is fully independent of the governor’s appointment authority – unless it is explicitly structured that way in the state Constitution.

This logic challenges the independence of agency regulatory bodies. How can decisions be made by independent entities – for example the setting of utility rates – if the governor controls the majority of the commissioners? Most obviously, how can an ethics agency investigate the governor or her staff when they are appointed directly by the governor? How can an ethics agency that is controlled by the governor be an effective watchdog over the chief executive?

If the court rules in favor of the former governor, he has a greater chance of keeping the $5 million. If the former governor wins, it’s back to the drawing board for ethics enforcement and perhaps even the independence of state agency decision-making. And that would be a bad thing for ethics oversight in New York and toss a hot potato to the Legislature. Stay tuned.

Albany’s big news last week was Governor Hochul’s approval of the Climate Change Superfund Act. The Climate Superfund requires that companies responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions between the years 2000 and 2024 pay about $3 billion each year for 25 years to help the state defray the costs of climate change.

The rationale for the legislation, which enjoyed widespread support from hundreds of organizations, over 100 local elected officials, countless community activists, and bipartisan support in both houses of the state Legislature, was simple: Make the companies most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions pony up to offset the mushrooming state taxpayer costs of damages caused by a worsening climate and to cover the necessary investments to make infrastructure safer.

As the governor said in approving the bill, “With nearly every record rainfall, heatwave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have historically harmed our environment.”

Simply put, the Climate Superfund reduces by $75 billion the future taxpayer costs from more intense storms, hotter temperatures, and rising sea levels by shifting those costs to the biggest oil companies – who are primarily responsible for the damage and concealed the true dangers for decades.

While $75 billion may seem like a lot, it still is only a portion of the looming climate costs New York faces. It’s going to cost hundreds of billions to shore up New York against the impacts of climate change – estimates put the price tags at $52 billion to protect New York City Harbor, $75-$100 billion to protect Long Island, and $55 billion for climate costs across the rest of the state. The state Comptroller has predicted that more than half of local governments’ costs will be attributable to the climate crisis. Until now, these costs have fallen on taxpayers, even though Big Oil – with booming business coming off enormously profitable years – knew for years of the dangers and did all it could to keep the world from acting.

Now that the legislative battle is over and the implementation battles have yet to begin, the public relations war is engaged. Big Oil’s allies and political partisans criticized the proposal focusing on one major line of attack: that the Climate Superfund will result in higher consumer prices.

Expert economists and independent think tanks have disagreed. According to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, “Regardless of market structures, oil companies are unable to pass on increases in fixed costs to consumers due to economic incentives and competition.” The Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, in a letter to Governor Hochul made the case that the Superfund Act will not raise the price of oil on consumers because that price is set by the global market.

But putting aside for the moment the clear and powerful economic analysis that the Climate Superfund will not raise consumer prices, there is another argument.

Right now, the public is paying 100% of the state’s current climate costs and would have been paying the full freight of those costs as they exponentially grow in the future. If opponents are right that costs will be passed on – and they’re not right – the public can’t be worse off. They can’t pay more than 100% of the costs.

Which then raises the question, why not roll the dice on the Climate Superfund? The worst-case scenario is the status quo – the public eats 100% of the costs; and the best case is that the taxpayer burden is reduced by a whopping $75 billion paid for by the enormously profitable oil companies.

Of course, political partisans, corporate ideologues, and fossil fuel industry mouthpieces would rather use Big Oil’s talking points and attack the plan based on its supposed impact on prices. They are not really looking out for the public; they are simply trying to politically harm the governor for her important decision to approve the law as well as to protect the interests of Big Oil.

But for the rest of us, the governor’s approval of the Climate Superfund is good news and a welcome holiday gift for New York taxpayers. Until her approval, New York taxpayers were 100% on the financial hook for climate costs. Now Big Oil will pay for a big chunk of the damages that they helped cause. As a result, New Yorkers will have their future tax burden reduced by $3 billion annually. It’s a win for taxpayers, the environment, and consumers.

That’s a great way to wrap up the year.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Law”) was approved five years ago and sets the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

New York’s law set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the goals advised by the world’s climate experts. Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

After the Climate Law was passed the state convened a panel of “stakeholders” to develop a detailed blueprint to meet the law’s milestone goals. That blueprint was released at the end of 2022. Among its findings was that unless measures were taken, New Yorkers faced a considerable financial risk from climate-change impacts. The blueprint estimated “the cost of inaction in New York State exceeding the cost of action by more than $115 billion.”

In fact, New Yorkers are already paying dearly for climate damages. And this year New York saw a continuation of the yearslong catastrophic impacts from our worsening climate.

The first half of November was among the 20 driest such periods on record. That dryness increased the likelihood of wildfires occurring – and they did. New York City had brush fires in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Wildfires have not been the only bizarre environmental events experienced by New Yorkers. The National Weather Service documented that 32 tornadoes touched down in New York this year. That’s the most since tornadoes were first recorded in the state in 1950.

Preparing for and dealing with those climate disasters has been a cornerstone for energy policy in New York. Actions by the state can not only protect New Yorkers but can also benefit the world. While New York’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is small relative to the total, New York is one of the world’s leading economies. As a result, having aggressive science-based energy policies here can have impacts at the state, national, and international levels.

Not surprisingly, a well-funded backlash has been organized to block – or at least slow down – action in New York. The fossil fuel industry and its allies have embarked on a statewide campaign to undermine those science-based goals, assailing them as “ignorant,” “radical,” and “unaffordable.” This campaign is just the latest in the decades-long efforts to block climate protection policies.

Some opponents have argued that New York’s science-based goals are simply too ambitious. If so, then other states would be in the same situation. But that is not the case.

New York ranks 16^th in the nation in its reliance on renewable energy. New York ranks 13^th in the nation in its production of solar power, behind northeast neighbor Massachusetts (ranked 5^th). Of course, differences in geography and climate can drive these rankings, but New York only generates around 5 percent of its electricity from solar, while our neighbor to the east, Massachusetts generates some 24 percent of its energy from solar, and often overcast Germany generates 10 percent.

When it comes to affordability, policymakers should remember that climate change – with its more intense storms and rising sea levels – damages infrastructure, and thus requires more state spending and higher taxes. Diverting revenues from other programs to pay for climate-caused damage can make New York less affordable.

For example, this year (as of November 1, 2024), there had been 10 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect New York, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In the absence of aggressive action, it won’t go away: Global energy-related CO₂ emissions hit a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency. As we close out 2024, according to NOAA, 2024 is on track to top last year’s heat record.

It’s not just damaged infrastructure that drives costs: The pollution and heat generated by climate change also damages people’s health, drives up health care costs, and hurts businesses. These increases in costs also contribute to making New York less affordable.

Last week, the state accepted comments on its draft energy plan. Public input, however, can still be incorporated. The final energy plan will direct the state toward the steps it needs to take to ensure reliable energy, at affordable prices, and one that minimizes – and eventually eliminates – New York’s carbon footprint. Whatever the final energy plan includes, it must be based on the best climate science in order to help the world avoid the worst of possible climate outcomes.

The Energy Plan maps New York’s energy future. Here’s hoping the fossil fuel industry and allied naysayers are ignored and that policymakers follow the science.

One of the biggest issues that the Congress faces this month is what to do about the National Defense Authorization Act. Before both houses of Congress left prior to the election, they had actively considered defense spending bills, but those plans did not match. In order for a spending bill to become law, the Congress must negotiate and resolve its differences and pass matching bills. There has been every expectation that there would be an agreement on spending before the end of the calendar year.

As the Congress deliberates over its “lame duck” session, defense spending is considered a “must do.”

Buried among the existing defense spending is one program designed to help current members of the military. The program provides funding for post high school education, including college or occupational training.

One of the big selling points to enticing individuals to volunteer for military service is the possibility to get a college education or other ways to enhance their careers.

The United States employs about 1.3 million people in active military service. All of these individuals are volunteers and that’s the way it’s been since the 1970s.

Being in the military can be dangerous – after all, armed forces are trained to go to war. While the government provides military personnel with basic services – health care, housing, among them – the pay is shockingly low. The lowest ranking soldier with the least amount of time in the service makes about $2,000 per month.

To offset that meager pay, the Defense Department offers financial assistance to those who seek a college degree or some other form of career enhancement.

Yet tuition benefits for active military members are far below the average rate of tuition in the U.S. Active military members are reimbursed only $250 per credit hour up to an annual cap of $4,500. While the average cost of four-year public college tuition and fees increased 140% over the past twenty years, the active military tuition reimbursement rate has not changed since 2002. Today, the average cost of one credit hour at public four-year institutions is $406, and it is nearly four times that amount at private schools.

Many colleges and universities cannot afford to honor the $250 reimbursement rate, so given the modest salaries of active military and the low tuition reimbursement rate, members of the armed forces have increasingly limited choices of schools to attend.

There are relatively simple solutions to this problem. First, the Department of Defense receives about $800 million annually for tuition reimbursement. However, it only uses about $600 million for that purpose. The remainder of the funds goes toward training and other activities. If the Department of Defense actually used all the money it receives for tuition assistance for that purpose, then it could increase the tuition reimbursement rate to $300-350 per credit hour.

The second step in the solution is for Congress to allocate more resources for active military tuition.

It might seem as though $800 million is a lot of money. It is – until it is put into broader context. The 2024 Department of Defense budget is nearly $850 billion. If Congress added $500 million to the Department of Defense budget stipulating that it must be used for tuition reimbursement, it would allow the active-duty tuition reimbursement rate to increase to at least the average cost of a credit hour at public universities.

It is clear that the DOD already has a gigantic budget. There can be no doubt that the Department should use its clout to boost the reimbursement rate. Since the U.S. has a completely voluntary armed forces, it’s in the national interest to attract capable and dedicated individuals who want to serve. A small investment in the benefit that drives many to enlist would go a long way to ensure that the nation’s military is adequately staffed. Let’s not just thank military personnel for their service, let’s show them we’re grateful. Whether the Congress shares that sentiment, time will soon tell.