Wednesday, July 16, 2025
New York has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country — including a statewide mandate for electric school buses by 2035 and zero-emissions electricity by 2040. But the question remains: Should New Yorkers, who already consume less energy per capita than residents of any other state except Rhode Island, be leading the national charge on climate change?
That’s a question for the lawmakers who passed the state’s sweeping climate legislation in 2019. Now, a new proposal — the HEAT Act — aims to go even further. The legislation centers on two key ideas: first, phasing out fossil-fuel heating in favor of electric systems, and second, capping household energy bills based on income, a move that could result in some residents subsidizing their neighbors’ electricity costs.
No cheap electricity for electric heat. The rationale is to transition homes from gas to electric heat and remove aging gas infrastructure. In theory, households would save money by avoiding gas pipeline costs and relying solely on electricity.
But that theory runs into problems. Most New Yorkers currently use gas or similar fuels to heat their homes.
Converting them all to electricity will require a major increase in power generation — and that electricity must be affordable to prevent heating bills from soaring.
At present, New York electricity is far from cheap. Households pay an average of 25 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with the national average of 17 cents. Pennsylvania households pay around 18 cents, while New Jersey residents pay 20.
Meanwhile, New York is also working to attract energy-intensive industries, such as chip manufacturing and artificial intelligence development. For example, the Micron semiconductor plant that is planned for upstate New York is expected to consume as much electricity as the entire state of New Hampshire.
If New York had an abundance of low-cost electricity, the switch to electric heat might make sense. But it doesn’t. The state imports a significant share of its power from Pennsylvania, where it is largely generated using coal and natural gas — the very fuels New York is trying to move away from.
Given these circumstances, critics argue that mandating a shift away from gas does not make economic or environmental sense.
An expensive and questionable fixation. Switching to electric heat won’t come cheap. Many homes will require insulation upgrades, system replacements or electrical work — all of which are costly.
If the state decides to subsidize those changes, it will raise questions of fairness. Why should taxpayers fund improvements to privately owned homes when many New Yorkers can’t afford to buy one? Some compare the idea to handing out free tires — but only to people who already own cars.
Moreover, energy efficiency upgrades like better windows or added insulation can reduce energy use regardless of the heating source. Critics say such investments don’t require a full switch to electric heat.
Paying your neighbor’s energy bill. Another provision in the HEAT Act proposes capping household energy costs at 6 percent of income. Any amount above that would be subsidized — potentially by other households.
Supporters say the policy would protect low-income residents from rising utility costs. But detractors argue that it could backfire. Subsidizing energy consumption, they say, undermines efforts to reduce demand. One critic joked that if electricity were free, they’d start mining Bitcoin from their apartment.
Worse still, the bill would allow the state to impose energy-use limits on subsidized households — a move opponents say could amount to rationing.
Rather than delivering affordable, zero-carbon power, some fear that the HEAT Act could lead to a future in which Albany dictates how much electricity New Yorkers are allowed to use.
Zilvinas Silenas is president of the Empire Center for Public Policy.
