New York Admits Aggressive Green Energy Goals 'Unaffordable'

State concedes climate targets pose 'costs consumers simply cannot bear'

Published on Feb. 4, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

New York has effectively conceded that its ambitious green energy goals would pose 'costs consumers simply cannot bear.' The state's 2019 climate legislation demanded 70% renewable electricity and a 40% emissions cut from 1990 levels by 2030, escalating to a zero-emission power system by 2040 and net zero economy-wide by 2050. However, facing a court-imposed deadline, New York has now admitted these targets are 'infeasible' and 'unaffordable for consumers.'

Why it matters

New York has long positioned itself as a leader in the transition to green energy, but this admission exposes the gaps between lofty ambition and economic realities. The state's aggressive climate goals have faced growing skepticism from analysts who warned that intermittent renewable sources require costly backup systems to ensure reliability. This case highlights the challenges many governments face in balancing ambitious emissions targets with affordability for consumers.

The details

In a court filing, New York acknowledged that even its most aggressive scenario for meeting the 2030 targets would fall short while jacking up energy system costs by at least 35% in 2040, adding a $42 billion burden that year alone. The state confessed this price tag is 'insurmountable' and that achieving net zero emissions is not feasible with current technology and policies.

  • In 2019, New York passed climate legislation setting aggressive emissions reduction targets.
  • In March 2026, environmental groups sued the state to enforce the 2030 mandates.
  • In October 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that New York must comply with the targets by February 6, 2026.

The players

New York

The state of New York, which passed ambitious climate legislation in 2019 but is now admitting the targets are 'unaffordable for consumers.'

Francis Menton

A writer who has closely followed New York's climate policy on his Manhattan Contrarian blog.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.