Clean Energy Transmission Battle Pits Speed Against Worker, Farm Protections

Democrats in the legislature broadly share Hochul’s goal to plug renewables in faster. But they aren’t satisfied with how the governor wants to go about it. They want to put new checks and balances on ORES, requiring more public hearings and local input on siting rules. The Assembly wants to add new labor protections for a wide range of clean energy projects, while the Senate wants to create a new fee for solar projects sited on farmland. Renewable developers argue that both proposals could slow clean energy development at a critical moment — exactly the opposite of what the RAPID Act intends.

Hochul’s version of the bill would “address the incredibly significant transmission constraints that are hampering renewables deployment,” according to the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a trade group for wind and solar companies. It said the legislature’s version would be worse than nothing; it would “delay us in meeting ALL of our climate law goals.”

Four days after the state’s April 1 budget deadline, it remains unclear whether either side will prove willing to compromise. Some lobbyists working on the legislation say the Hochul administration is sticking to its guns, and might prefer to drop the RAPID Act from the budget rather than agreeing to the changes. But sources say energy issues have yet to be seriously discussed at closed-door budget talks, as legislative leaders and the governor’s office continue to haggle over housing policy and topline revenue and spending items. (Asked about the RAPID Act, the governor’s office sent only its stock statement about the budget.)

Legislators, for their part, remain adamant that the state can catch up on its climate targets while also folding in a range of other goals, as New York seeks to set a national standard for climate justice.

“We deal with competing priorities every single day,” said Senate energy committee chair Kevin Parker. “Yes, we need clean energy generation and clean energy transmission up and running as soon as possible — and ‘as soon as possible’ means … making sure that we’re not doing more harm than good with with what we’re trying to do.”

Leading the push for the farmland protections is Senate agriculture committee chair Michelle Hinchey of the Hudson Valley, who has regularly sparred with ORES over what she sees as its pattern of steamrolling over community concerns and agricultural land. She said accelerating clean energy construction and protecting farmland are both critically important, and compatible, goals.

“The cost of losing access to our prime farmland is not just a problem for our food supply,” she told New York Focus. “Agricultural land is a core part of the solution to the climate crisis.” When maintained right, soil absorbs carbon from the air, so the state has been promoting farming practices that help achieve this.

“If we’re taking farm businesses out of the possibility of sequestering carbon, we’re going to be chasing our tail,” Hinchey said.

The influential Farm Bureau backs the Senate’s proposal and is actively lobbying lawmakers on it, spokesperson Steve Ammerman told New York Focus.

And the Assembly seems to be on board. “We want to find that balance between protecting our valuable farmland and food supply and obviously reaching our goals,” the chamber’s energy chair Didi Barrett said in March.

Climate groups share these broad goals — but they say the state is already striking the balance well enough.

“We really shouldn’t go back on something that’s starting to move forward with success,” said Liz Moran, Northeast policy advocate at Earthjustice, of ORES. “We’re getting more renewable energy online, and many would argue not fast enough. So we shouldn’t be slow-rolling this.”

New York already has a Farmland Protection Working Group and fees in place to minimize the impact of new energy facilities on productive soils.

Solar boosters also point out that the total amount of land needed to decarbonize the grid is relatively small. Richard Perez, a solar expert at the University at Albany, estimates that New York could get year-round, 24/7 clean energy using about one percent of its farmland for solar, along with rooftops, other urban areas, and floating panels. That amounts to about 70,000 acres. By comparison, Perez estimates that New York currently devotes about 125,000 acres to growing corn for ethanol, a vastly less efficient form of energy.

And proponents note that revenue from solar leases are a lifeline for many farmers, allowing them to stay in business when they otherwise might have been forced to fold.

Melinda Vizcarra, a fifth-generation farmer, grows fruits and vegetables on about 300 acres in Niagara County. Over the years, she and her husband have expanded into wine and beer making, plus hosting seasonal events and dozens of weddings per year, to make ends meet. Still, “it’s scary every year,” she said.

So when a solar developer approached her a few years ago about leasing 50 acres of her land, she was quickly convinced. She wasn’t farming on the plot, anyway — the family had already been renting it out — and the solar lease would pay quite a bit more once the panels were built.

In contrast to the unpredictability of crops, the solar lease would provide “something that we know, from that piece of ground, we’re going to get that much money every year,” Vizcarra said. The solar revenue should be enough to cover the farm’s utility bills, she added, taking one major expense off the table.

If the project moves ahead as planned, Vizcarra’s land will be a small part of a 350-megawatt solar and storage plant developed by EDF Renewables. The company hopes the facility will be up and running by 2027, but it still has to file its permit with the state, and there is plenty of local opposition to contend with, including from other farmers in the area.

For Hinchey, the bottom line remains the same: Developers build on farmland because it’s cheap. Some of them are large multinational firms; many have backing from private equity; and they should pay their fair share.

“If we’re going to be taking away a finite resource, having a small fee to protect the finite resource seems like a fine thing to do,” she said.