Energy future weighed by costs

The question “Who wins the green energy vs. affordability clash?” is the wrong one to ask [“Green energy vs. affordability,” Editorial, March 15]. Instead, Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers must ask what greener resources will help us maintain affordability while making progress toward environmental goals. The answer is being overlooked: renewable biofuels — lower-emission heating oil and diesel alternatives made from sources like used cooking oil.

Biofuels are “drop-in” alternatives that work with existing boilers and furnaces or diesel trucks. That is critical when the upfront costs of replacing existing building heat systems and vehicles with all-electric alternatives are out of reach for many families and small businesses, especially if they’ll be forced to pay yearly premiums that the state recently calculated New Yorkers will face under impending mandates.

The editorial board proposes adjustments to state law for legislators to consider. The state must also ensure that life-cycle emissions of biofuels are calculated properly, as California has calculated them, spurring a renewable fuels market that has dramatically reduced emissions.

Adapting to cost challenges without losing sight of the greater goals, as the editorial put it, means embracing all options on the table, rather than overlooking what’s right in front of us.

— Rocco J. Lacertosa, Hauppauge

The writer is CEO of the New York State Energy Coalition.

There is no clash between green energy and affordability except the one that gas lobbyists seem to be trying to convince Kathy Hochul of.

After several years of stalling on the climate mandate, especially the provision that would send energy bill rebates to consumers while investing in more green energy, Hochul has changed the rules to declare the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act unaffordable. Hochul has even had the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority produce a memo with questionable accounting standards to “prove” it.

What should be blatantly apparent to Hochul and the rest of our elected leaders is that our sky-high energy bills are not paying for the climate mandate. They are paying for the ever-increasing price of natural gas, the global spike in heating oil prices because of our war on Iran, and building out more gas and grid infrastructure.

Knowing clean energy tax cuts were ending, other states hustled projects along. States are starting to make it easier for families to buy their own plug-in solar. Instead, National Grid customers are on the hook for a new gas pipeline President Donald Trump wanted.

— Alexa Marinos, North Babylon

We can no longer depend on our elected officials for help with energy cost emergencies. Our costs don’t seem to matter to them, and we let them do it.

We lost all the solar credits because President Donald Trump doesn’t like renewable energy and the taxpayer credits. Long Island’s previous representative in the 1st Congressional District, Lee Zeldin, was a moderate conservative in favoring wind turbines and other renewables. But he then joined Trump’s administration as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator and has actively worked against them.

I’d like to get solar panels on my roof, use heat pumps, and get an electric car. Having lived on Long Island for more than 70 years, for me, it’s getting late.

In the 1970s, I got rid of my V-8 car and started driving four cylinders with stick shifts. Then I got a wood stove at Rickel Home Centers ($69 on sale) and cut and split every tree. Hurricanes Gloria and Bob and Tropical Storm Irene blew over. I put in a sunroom in the ’80s, with tax credits, and I installed heat pumps to reduce oil consumption.

It’s time for our governments to help us achieve our own energy independence.

— Ken Archer, Shoreham

I cannot understand why electric rates need to go up over $4,000 per year to satisfy climate change initiatives. I understand that someone needs to pay the cost of building wind farms and battery storage facilities just as we had to pay the cost of constructing fossil-fueled power plants. But isn’t that cost offset by not having to pay for the gas and oil that powered those plants?

Also, with eventual reduced demand for natural gas, I would expect the cost of it for home heating and cooking to come down as the demand drops. Why are these issues not mentioned in studies or discussions? Other costs, such as maintenance, would be shifted from existing power plants to wind farms.

Also, in a future with the wind farms offshore and fossil fuel plants shut down, wind farm taxes could be reduced as well. However, I expect politicians would look for a way to tax the wind farms as well.

I also am concerned that much of the money to upgrade our power distribution system grid will accommodate the data centers planned or being built for the AI industry, and I strongly believe these costs should not be borne by the residential and commercial ratepayers.

— Lewis Damrauer, Dix Hills