New New York homes must go all electric

By Cathy DeDe, Chronicle Managing Editor

New York State will require new home construction to be all electric as of Jan. 1, 2026.

State Senator Dan Stec and Assemblyman Matt Simpson, both Republicans, voted against the law.

Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner, a Democrat, says the mandate was embedded in the 2023 budget, which she voted for. But she tells The Chronicle, “I absolutely wish it had never been put into the budget. We had heard from the utility companies that the grid capacity just isn’t there. The amount of increased demand this move to electrification is producing is something the grid is not positioned yet to handle.”

“I do think the right thing to do is to put a pause on it,” the 113th District Assemblywoman replied tp a Chronicle query.

“For how long is a question of how long it’s going to take us to add the capacity to the grid that we need to ensure that we can deliver against all these mandates.

“We also are coming up against the EV bus mandate, which is also going to drive up power requirements in communities.

“I think we need to take a hard look at where the increase in load is going to come from, how much power we have there, and make sure that we’ve got a grid that can handle all of this before we start working on expanding demand.”

The Assemblywoman cites Texas, “a big oil and gas state for sure, but they have really worked on expanding renewables and expanding their grid capacity and increasing electrification. But they said, ‘Let’s build out the infrastructure first, and then once we have the infrastructure in place, then we can focus on programs that encourage greater electrification.’ To me, that is just the right order of things.”

Ms. Woerner says, “We were successful in the legislature in modifying the original proposal to provide for a couple of safeguards.”

One, she says, is that the mandate applies only to residential buildings of seven floors or less, not industrial or commercial buildings.

“The second, most important safeguard,” she says, is that “a developer can go to whichever utility services that area, and if the utility says, there’s not enough power available, they can get a waiver.”

Ms. Woerner says “the challenge” on the eve of the January 1 start date, is that the state Public Service Commission, which would field waiver applications, has not issued a process for the utility to determine power availability.

She said she’s hearing from developers that utilities across the board say there’s sufficient power — but her understanding is that without state guidance, those utility decisions are based on each individual project, not taking into account the totality of proposed projects.

“We didn’t mean for it to create a bureaucratic mess,” Ms. Woerner says. “It seemed like it wouldn’t be pretty straightforward, but the PSC didn’t act quickly enough.”

The Assemblywoman says another challenge is projects already approved through the zoning and planning process, but for which the builders have not yet obtained building permits.

Especially with a multi-unit subdivision of single family homes builders typically get permits for the model homes, and then only get permits for the remainder of the houses when they have a buyer.

The state has said building permits issued before by the end of this will not fall under the electric mandate.

Ms. Woerner says she’s submitted legislation to grandfather in any project that’s gone through the approval process except for getting the building permit.

“Otherwise it’s going to…grind to a halt” all long-term approved residential projects that are not fully electric, forcing them “all the way back through the planning process.”

Sge adds, “Chances are, even if they haven’t built the houses, they’ve run the infrastructure for the gas or other utilities. They’ve incurred lots of expense.”

Even if haven’t, “they still have a lot of money invested in the development of plans and engineering drawings and everything else, which would be thrown out.”

She said of her legislation, “I did get it to the floor, it just didn’t get a vote. We ran out of time. I’m going to try and do it again early in the year,” as soon as the session opens in January.

“The good news is our building season is really March through November. So brand new construction projects wouldn’t begin in the middle of January. If we can get the bill passed and get the governor to sign it, we may still be able to keep those projects moving along.”

Assemblywoman Woerner says, “The broader concern is that the focus on electrification builds demand and we really don’t have an infrastructure that’s ready to handle it, and consumers are, frankly, at least in this part of the state, not clamoring for all electric heating and cooling in their homes or cooking.”

Separately, she says “Your basic GE stove is going to be less expensive than an induction cooktop stove. Over time, the price differentials will change, as these things do, but it’s not there yet.”

Ms. Woerner says homeowners tell her that electric heat pumps “work fine” for heating and cooling, “except on extremely cold or hot days,” so backup systems are needed.

“I think the technology is going to improve over time, but it’s not there yet from a capacity perspective, it’s not there yet from a price perspective.

“We don’t have the power infrastructure capacity to go full speed ahead on electrification. I don’t think consumer preferences are there yet. I don’t think the price points are adequate,” except with government subsidies, but “a policy that depends on government subsidies to work? I don’t think that’s the right approach.”

Assemblywoman Woerner said, “I have had some communication with the governor’s office about the challenges here, and they are aware of the problems. I think there’s some recognition that we need to pull back on the reins here a little bit.”

Her own take: “The right thing to do is to put a pause on it,” until the infrastructure part is addressed. She notes the state’s energy plan update addresses the issue, but not as strongly as she’d like.

The good news? Ms. Woerner says of the electric mandate: “This is just new construction. There’s a laundry list of problems with this, but it doesn’t impact anybody who is living in their home, happy with what they have there. This doesn’t affect them at all.”

Quick summary NYS Electric Buildings Act

As summarized in an AI overview:

The NYS Electric Buildings Act, or All-Electric Buildings Act (AEBA), mandates that most new construction in New York State use zero-emission electric heating and appliances instead of fossil fuels like natural gas.

The law, passed in 2023, phases in requirements starting with new buildings seven stories or shorter in 2026, followed by all new buildings in 2029, with exemptions for certain industries like manufacturing, hospitals, and commercial food establishments.

The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and lower energy costs for New Yorkers.

Key Aspects of the Act

• Purpose: To decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and help New York meet its climate mandates.
• Scope: Prohibits the installation of fossil fuel-combustion infrastructure and equipment in new buildings.
• Timeline: Effective 2025 (for permits submitted after December 31, 2025): Applies to new buildings seven stories or shorter.
• Effective 2028 (for permits submitted after December 31, 2028): Applies to all new buildings, including those larger than seven stories.

Exemptions: The law includes exemptions for certain building types, such as:

• Hospitals
• Commercial food establishments
• Manufacturing facilities
• Agricultural buildings
• Laundromats
• Wastewater treatment facilities
• Car washes

Impact: The law will create thousands of green jobs, help stabilize utility costs, and create healthier living and working environments.

Implementation: The AEBA was included in the 2023-2024 State budget and amends the State Energy Conservation Construction Code.

Dan Stec: NYS electric mandate has ‘no basis in engineering or financial reality’

By Cathy DeDe, Chronicle Managing Editor

“Not feasible,” State Senator Dan Stec (R, 45th District) says of the All-Electric Buildings Act.

“The simple matter is that we, the state of New York, the legislature and the Governor, have mandated a use of technology that has almost no basis in engineering or financial realities.

“What you’ve got is a bunch of people that don’t know — I’ll even go so far as to say many of them don’t care about — hey, how do you get this job done?

“They just know — we have the power to write a law, and if there’s enough of us that vote for it, it becomes the law, and we get to take a political victory lap. We get to cheer, hey, we’re saving the planet.”

“That’s not to say we couldn’t shift over to electricity eventually, but the artificial, political timeline that they chose was more gimmick than science.

Sen. Stec add sas an aside, “A little tongue in cheek: This is the party that likes to lecture the rest of us about being science deniers.”

Noting he’s the only engineer in the Senate, and maybe the legislature, with a background in nuclear energy, Sen. Stec says, “I’ve never been a lineman for National Grid, but I have an appreciation that I think a lot of my colleagues don’t for what it takes to construct infrastructure like this….

“By the 2030s we’re going to go from a summer peak electric grid to a winter peak because of these mandates. We have fundamentally changed what we’re asking our electric grid to be able to do, but we haven’t built the infrastructure. That takes time and money.”

Sen. Stec adds, “You’re talking public hearings, takings of land potentially. That means the courts, engineering, design, public input, public reports and feedback and comment periods. All this before shovels go into the ground.”

“Anecdotally, the number-one complaint I get is the subject of electric bills.

“I want state government to be honest about what’s going on. My colleagues and the governor are very happy to let the rate payer, when they see their new electric bills, get angry at National Grid and the energy companies and get angry at the Public Service Commission for allowing these rate increases.

“They need to look in the mirror, because they’ve mandated these costs. What’s happening is what everyone said would happen: You’re telling the companies, go spend money on building a bigger, better infrastructure and new power plants, and buy more electricity.
“They’re going to pass that infrastructure cost down to the ratepayers.”

Sen. Stec argues that options to purchase electricity from outside the state or from Canada may potentially lead to less clean sources such as coal.

As to adding more nuclear electricity, he says. “I’m comfortable with nuclear,” but “that can take decades” to implement, and public sentiment is a challenge.

Matt Simpson: It’s politics, not research based

By Cathy DeDe, Chronicle Managing Editor

“I am absolutely opposed to a mandate,” says Assemblyman Matt Simpson (R, 114th District).

“This was another bill that was passed in the middle of the night and the end of the session, without the public really understanding how it’s going to affect them….

“Sadly, what we’ve learned through this is that the state, those that pushed the mandate, did not have the research or the technology considered before they mandated this transition.

“It was politically motivated, rather than based in research and facts and how we’re going to meet this demand.”

“The New York State Home Builders Association actually sued the state and lost, unfortunately. Among their concerns: ‘It’s going to increase cost,’” Assemblyman Simpson says.

“Mandates like this unequally affect people that don’t have ways to afford it. We’re inflicting undue hardships. And it’s not going to help the affordable housing issue at all.”

“I would think there could be a lag,” Mr. Simpson says, in enforcing the mandate.

“We’ve tried to get the implementing regs. They haven’t even written them yet.”

“Our infrastructure is inadequate. We discovered this when schools were attempting to meet the mandate to convert to purchase EV busses,” another portion of the electric mandate legislation.

“Ultimately, there was a waiver granted to the schools,” he says.

Regarding climate change, Assemblyman Simpson says, “I’m not a scientist. I don’t need to debate that. Where I need to work is that we need to be more efficient. We need to be better stewards with our resources. But that requires technology. We need to invest in technology and understanding how we can ultimately serve the better uses of energy, and also be mindful of the cost….

“Particularly in the district that I represent the North Country, our energy up here is already 98 or 99% renewables, not produced by gas, oil or coal. It’s coming from hydro, solar, wind.”

Copyright © 2025 Lone Oak Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved