Page |1

From: Anthony Kownack, Corning Place Communications

Subject: Weekly Articles of Interest (New York Propane Gas Association)

Date: June 9, 2023

Bill,

Below, please find a compilation of articles, issued this week, that may be of interest to you. Articles
are also hyperlinked within each headline.

Thank you,

Anthony

Weekly Articles of Interest Include:

 Another Voice: The NY HEAT Act will needlessly threaten energy reliability and
affordability
 Renewable developers, pinched by inflation, to ask for increased subsidies
 Driscoll again faces criticism as confirmation vote approaches
 Commentary: Recycling handling fee must be changed before Bottle Bill expansion
 New York businesses slam amended packaging reduction bill
 Why We Must Pass the Climate Change Superfund Act Before the End of Legislative
Session
 New packaging reduction measure unites environmentalists as time runs short
 PRESS RELEASE | NYISO Releases Power Trends 2023: A Balanced Approach to a
Clean and Reliable Grid

Another Voice: The NY HEAT Act will needlessly threaten energy reliability and affordability
David P. Bauer
Buffalo News
June 9, 2023

The 2024 NYS Budget, approved on May 2nd, includes a first-in-the-nation statewide ban of natural
gas in new buildings, beginning in 2026. A proposal to ban natural gas in existing homes and
businesses was removed from the budget, but new legislation threatens the ability of Western New
Yorkers to continue using it.

The New York Home Energy Affordable Transition (NYHEAT) Act, currently being considered by
state legislators, includes sweeping amendments to the state’s Public Service Law. Of particular
 Page |2

concern, the bill would effectively prohibit the modernization of our existing natural gas delivery
system, which involves replacing older sections of pipeline as they reach the end of their useful life.
Instead, the bill provides that those older sections be permanently removed from service, which
would effectively ban natural gas service for entire neighborhoods.

Although the bill gives a nod to reliability, the very purpose of the NYHEAT Act is to force the
conversion of homes and businesses to electric heat – whether customers want it or not. The risks
to safety and reliability of forcing customers to heat their homes with electricity produced from
intermittent renewable sources are obvious. The affordability of forced conversion is also
concerning. The exorbitant conversion costs, estimated by the state at $20,000 to $50,000 per
household, would be borne by home and business owners, as the bill ignores those costs and
proposes no form of relief.

Further, the bill proposes to cap utility bills for low- and moderate-income households at 6% of
their income, a laudable concept in principle, but includes no clarity on how, or by whom, costs
beyond the cap would be paid for. But it’s obvious that the cost of this subsidy would be paid for by
New Yorkers, either in the form of higher utility costs or higher state income taxes. Rising costs
would directly impact consumers, with an inflationary impact on goods and services as businesses
pass their increased costs on to customers.

A premise of NYHEAT is that the natural gas distribution system must be discontinued to meet the
emissions reduction requirements set forth in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection
Act. But nowhere in the act does it say the use of natural gas must be eliminated. The continued
operation of a strategically downsized and decarbonized natural gas system is critical to achieving
the state’s goals in a way that ensures the continued reliability, resilience and affordability of
energy for all New Yorkers.

Renewable developers, pinched by inflation, to ask for increased subsidies

Marie J. French
Politico
June 5, 2023

ALBANY, N.Y. — Developers of new renewable energy projects in New York are poised to request
bigger payouts for already-contracted projects the state is counting on to hit its climate targets.

A formal petition to the state’s utility regulator, the Public Service Commission, is expected in the
coming days from the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents the industry, two
officials familiar with the plan told POLITICO and were granted anonymity to discuss the case.

The request is expected to cite recent inflation and other challenges for projects that have already
received contracts from NYSERDA and ask for an “inflation adjustment” — increased payments —
for onshore renewables.

The ask from the developers throws into question the state’s pipeline of renewable energy projects,
which state officials have pointed to as evidence that New York is on track to reach 70 percent
renewable energy by 2030.

“Although I can’t confirm exactly what our strategy is going to be, it’s true that inflation is affecting
all renewable energy projects in New York and everywhere else, and our focus is to get projects to
 Page |3

construction so there’s an even cadence of construction jobs and moving towards the goals,” said
Anne Reynolds, executive director of the industry group.

“Our biggest concern is that if there is a significant lull in project construction, not only won’t
renewable energy projects be getting built, but also a big slug of projects later on will cause a lot of
logistical problems and be difficult to manage and be more expensive.”

The 70 percent mandate was set in the state’s climate law passed in 2019, and the state began
awarding contracts for new large-scale solar and wind developments even before that. But
projects have faced significant hurdles in getting built including permitting and connections to the
power grid.

A petition to the PSC for a price adjustment would set off a fraught debate over the state’s
renewable energy goals and costs to consumers.

Renewable developers say they are facing rising costs for the materials and services they rely on
and are getting squeezed by higher interest rates as they go to finance projects.

Steel and transformer costs have increased more than 60 percent since 2018, according to federal
data. Various reports have shown that the costs of solar and wind projects have risen
recently, primarily driven by inflation and high input prices.

Higher interest rates also make it more difficult for developers to finance projects, increasing the
return they need to generate to make a profit.

State policymakers are aware of the risks posed by inflation to New York’s goals.
“Inflation remains stubbornly high. Inflation associated with clean energy is particularly
troublesome,” said John O’Leary, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s deputy secretary for energy and environment
at a City & State electrification conference earlier this week.

O’Leary cited the federal Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as “tailwinds”

against those concerns. But while those measures secured long-term certainty for tax credits for
renewable energy and some bonuses for domestic content and other considerations, the industry
still has concerns about rising costs.

The industry foreshadowed its concerns in a mid-December letter, exclusively reported by

POLITICO, requesting an inflation adjustment from NYSERDA. The authority has not acted on that
request, and going to the PSC would escalate the issue. It also signals developers may not move
forward with contracted projects without some level of relief.

Offshore wind projects in the Northeast have also been facing inflationary pressures and pushing
for revised contracts with bigger payouts. Tory Mazzola, a spokesperson for Orsted, which has a
contract with NYSERDA for a 924 MW offshore wind project off Long Island, said discussions about
macroeconomic factors continue.

“Sunrise Wind has been particularly impacted because it was agreed in 2019 right before high
inflation, rising interest rates and increased supply chain costs took shape,” he said. “We will
continue to look for initiatives and approaches to help address these challenges as we continue
 Page |4

building an American offshore wind industry and enabling investment and job creation across the
State of New York.”

The move will likely invigorate supporters of a measure to allow the New York Power Authority to
finance and build large-scale renewables, who raised concerns about the private sector’s ability to
meet the state’s climate targets. That proposal was included in the state budget deal passed earlier
this year.

“There’s no way New York State and the Public Service Commission should give greater incentives
to private developers,” said Aaron Eisenberg, a spokesperson for Public Power NY, the coalition that
pushed for NYPA’s role in renewables. “It is laughable that they would even ask. Now that the New
York Power Authority can and will build renewable energy, private developers can no longer hold
us hostage.”

Utilities seeking the ability to build new renewables financed by ratepayers might also be
galvanized by the industry’s request.

Under the NYSERDA contracts, developers get “renewable energy credits” for the energy they
generate. They earn other revenue from the electricity market. NYSERDA requires utilities and
other load-serving entities to buy the credits generated, passing costs along to customers.

Renewable developers have already been insulated from risks that energy prices will drop, with
changes to the original contract structure switching from a fixed price to an indexed price linked to
the energy markets. Consumers are also protected to some degree because the subsidy declines if
energy prices are higher than anticipated.

NYSERDA was directed by the PSC to begin awarding competitive contracts for new renewables in
2016 under the Clean Energy Standard, which had a goal of 50 percent renewable by 2030. The
authority has since made awards for 120 renewable and transmission projects to support the even
higher goal set in law.

But only about a dozen of those are currently operational. Despite that, the state has consistently
said New York’s existing and contracted projects are enough to hit 66 percent renewable by 2030.

Developers coming back to request higher prices than they were awarded over the past several
years throws into question the viability of those projects.

NYSERDA spokesperson Kate Muller said the authority would review any petition filed with the PSC
related to its work. The authority noted it has provided some flexibility to developers regarding
security they’re required to post under contract terms.

“Due to the contractual nature of NYSERDA’s relationship with the developers, NYSERDA has been
in regular communication about the economic pressures they, and their supply chain partners, are
facing considering inflation, commodity prices, financing costs and supply chain constraints,” she
said.

Driscoll again faces criticism as confirmation vote approaches

Rebecca C. Lewis
City & State
 Page |5

June 2, 2023

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s pick to lead the New York Power Authority, the state’s public energy provider,
is expected to receive a confirmation vote next week before lawmakers head home for the year. But
some climate advocates have lobbied against Justin Driscoll since his nomination nearly a year ago,
and at least one state senator has renewed the push for his rejection.

After Gil Quiniones stepped down in October of 2021, Driscoll has served as the interim CEO of
NYPA for over a year, with Hochul recommending that he take over the role permanently after the
end of the legislative session last year. The state Senate typically does not vote on nominations that
are not time sensitive after breaking for the year, and is now going through a bevy of gubernatorial
nominations in the final days of the scheduled session. Driscoll is expected to be on the agenda next
week as lawmakers make their way through the backlog. He first needs to be voted out of the
Energy and Finance Committees before the full Senate can weigh in. 

Socialist state Sen. Jabari Brisport on Thursday released a statement opposing Driscoll’s

confirmation, comparing it to the failed nomination of a moderate judge to lead the state Court of
Appeals earlier this year. “Like her nomination of Hector LaSalle, Governor Hochul wants a right-
wing corporate accomplice to lead a vital institution with a vision antithetical to New Yorkers’
values,” Brisport said. “Justin Driscoll is not an acceptable option to become the official head of
NYPA.” He claimed that Driscoll has made money from the fossil fuel industry by working for the
firm Brown & Weinraub, has donated to the GOP and provided power discounts to Amazon. 

The opposition to Driscoll is not new. Last year, after Hochul nominated him, state Sen. Julia Salazar
tweeted that she “wouldn’t be able to support Justin Driscoll’s nomination.” Fellow socialist state
Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, who at the time had won her primary in a heavily Democratic district but had
not yet taken office, also said she would vote against Driscoll. Brisport offered his first public
opposition at around the same time. Salazar has not commented on Driscoll in more recent days,
and the trio so far remain the only state senators to publicly say they would not support his
nomination.

Though the opposition isn’t novel, circumstances this year have shifted. For one, progressives have
already successfully killed a major gubernatorial nomination this year. For two, lawmakers
passed the Build Public Renewables Act – which Driscoll opposed – as part of the state budget this
session. Among other things, the law will require NYPA to ramp up its green energy production and
step in where the private sector is falling short in order for the state to meet its climate goals.
Driscoll had said that the agency did not have the capability to meet the requirements of the bill last
year, and further said mandating NYPA to step in was unnecessary. 

Campaign finance records also show that Driscoll indeed donated to Republicans, and in greater
sums than he did to Democrats. And before entering government service, Driscoll worked as a
lobbyist at Brown & Weinraub, a powerful lobbying and government relations firm in Albany that
has represented the interests of fossil fuel companies as part of its broad portfolio.

Progressives managed to kill Hochul’s most prominent nomination of her tenure so far when they
successfully coalesced opposition to her chief judge pick LaSalle earlier this year. But with only
three lawmakers on the record so far opposing Driscoll, it seems unlikely that they’ll have a repeat
performance even if controversy surrounding his nomination may lead to some heated questioning
and debate during the confirmation process. 
 Page |6

Hochul has repeatedly defended her pick of Driscoll. “At a time when New York is leading the fight
against climate change and rapidly transitioning to clean energy, NYPA needs strong visionary
leadership at the highest level," Hochul said in a press release announcing her recommendation of
him for the role last year. "Justin Driscoll brings that expertise to lead the nation's largest state-
owned utility and harness New York's energy resources to support our climate goals and promote
economic development.” When Driscoll first faced criticism, a spokesperson for the governor said
Driscoll has “stellar qualifications and (a) proven ability to lead the Authority’s transition to a
carbon-free electric utility.”

Commentary: Recycling handling fee must be changed before Bottle Bill expansion
Jade Eddy
Times Union
June 5, 2023

New York is once again considering expanding the state’s Bottle Bill to include more categories of
bottles and a higher deposit. Before this can occur, however, the state must address the dire
financial situation redemption centers find themselves in. 

From Long Island to Buffalo, New York’s redemption centers play a vital role in ensuring the Bottle
Bill works properly. But many of us have closed. Those of us that remain are on the verge of closing
due to the high cost of doing business and the low handling fee associated with bottle returns.  Most
centers are not in a position to redeem liquor and wine bottles and pay a higher deposit return. 

The handling fee is the sole source of revenue for the state’s small-business redemption centers.
The current handling fee of 3.5 cents has not been raised since 2009. In the 14 years since, we have
seen significantly increased costs of business due to higher insurance, wages and property costs.  

This is not a problem that is unique to New York. In Maine, 50 redemption centers have closed since
2020. To stop the exodus and the major threat that their loss poses to the stability and success of
Maine’s entire beverage container redemption program, the state passed emergency legislation
earlier this month to raise the handling fee to 5.5 cents for containers picked up between May 1 and
Sept. 1, and to 6 cents for containers picked up on or after Sept. 1, 2023. We cannot continue
operations without a similar, immediate raise in the handling fee here in New York. 

The state’s small-business redemption centers handle millions of bottles annually, and their
convenience and efficiency have helped New York’s Bottle Bill become successful. We pay taxes to
and hire employees from the towns we operate in. Additionally, redemption centers support our
communities through fundraising activities and bottle drives conducted by PTAs, Boy and Girl Scout
troops, sports teams and others. If we close, our communities lose that fundraising lifeline.

New York’s redemption centers support a broader expansion of the bottle bill. However, before an
official expansion, the state must provide an increased handling fee to enable us to maintain our
businesses and continue to provide the essential service we offer New Yorkers. It is vital they adjust
our handling fee immediately and allow us time to financially prepare for what will follow with
more expenses that come with an expanded bill.

Jade Eddy is the owner of MT Returnables of Corinth.

 Page |7

New York businesses slam amended packaging reduction bill

Kate Lisa
State of Politics
June 5, 2023

State business leaders have met last-minute changes made to a bill to limit plastic pollution
and increase recycling statewide with fierce pushback in efforts to prevent the measure's
passage in the last few days of session.
The legislation, nicknamed the Packaging and Recycling Infrastructure Act , would establish
an Extended Producer Responsibility system in New York and make producers of
packaging responsible for the costs of consumer waste and reduce used toxins. It would
limit single-use plastic products for companies that sell packaged goods and charge them a
fee to go into a fund to improve recycling infrastructure, increase the amount of waste
that's recycled and support other local recyling programs.
"Municipalities are drowning in waste," sponsor state Sen. Pete Harckham said Monday.
"It's costing our taxpayers in our municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars that can be
better spent on teachers or firefighters or social workers."
Harckham, who chairs the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee, says the
measure is estimated to save taxpayers $250 million per year and relieve local
governments struggling with recycling costs.
The proposed law would apply to companies with a net annual income over $1
million. Companies would be required to register with Packaging Reduction Organization
to devise a plan and ensure compliance with the new packaging and recycling rules with
six months to implement it. 
The bill was amended and reprinted for the eighth time Friday to streamline the reduction
process for affected companies and give the state Department of Environmental
Conservation enhanced oversight.
"We believe in shared responsibility," said Assembly sponsor Deborah Glick, who chairs
the Environmental Conservation Committee in the lower house. "This should not be just
the responsibility of the municipalities and the taxpayer. This should be something where
our friends in industry take some responsibility for the waste that they generate in our
homes."
Impacted companies would be mandated to reduce their packaging by 10% of weight
within three years, 20% in five years, 30% within eight years, 40% after a decade and by
50% in 12 years. 
If passed into law, the measure would ban 12 types of chemicals and three kinds of plastic
used in packaging.
It would limit single-use plastic products for companies selling packaged goods, charge
them a fee and use that money to increase and improve recycling.
But state business leaders are strongly opposed  to the measure, arguing it would increase
costs for consumers and could lead to more packaging in the long run, or materials that
won't protect a product as effectively.
 Page |8

"If you want that convenience of [next-day shipping], and you want it in the exact-sized
box and you want it tomorrow, I might not have time to wait for the exact sized box to put
it on your doorstep," said Walter Reiter, director of advocacy and regulatory affairs with
EPS Alliance — an association that represents manufacturers and recyclers of the
compound polystyrene.
Reiter said EPS Alliance supported the Extended Producer Responsibility systems created
in Oregon and Canada, which reduce, but do not prohibit certain compounds. He cited the
DEC's reference guide about potential alternatives for packaging such as starch, bamboo or
mushroom, might be compostable, but not recyclable or intended for re-use.
"If it's Extended Producer Responsibility, it should focus on what the packaging is," Reiter
added. "I'd like to see EPR focus be on keeping material in commerce and out of the
landfills and not dipping into bans and attacks on chemistries and materials that aren't
understood. There's no assessment as to whether the others have a greater or lesser
environmental impact. Some materials use more water. Some materials produce more
acidification — there's multiple categories as to where these impacts are."
Dozens of organizations have sent legislative leaders and bill sponsors letters over the last
week railing against the proposal before session concludes.
NY Coalition Letter  by Luke Parsnow  on Scribd
Meanwhile, other business owners have transitioned to reusable packaging on their own,
showing it's already feasible. Lauren Sweeney, co-founder and CEO of DeliverZero, relies
on re-usable containters with her food take-out and delivery business, which has dozens of
locations in New York City.
"We know that reuse is possible — we know that reuse can be profitable," she said in the
Capitol on Monday. "We know that reduction is only possible through reuse. There is both
technology and infrastructure to support reuse through businesses that exist in New York
state."
The decision rests with legislative leaders to bring the bill to the floor for a vote in the
Senate and Assembly before session concludes at week's end. Representatives with Senate
Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie's offices did
not return requests for comment about the legislation.
Sources Monday were doubtful it would clear the Legislature within the next few days,
citing insufficient time to review changes made to the bill and their impact on New York
businesses.

Why We Must Pass the Climate Change Superfund Act Before the End of Legislative Session
Michaelle Solages
Gotham Gazette
June 5, 2023

Climate change is eating Long Island away, and is projected to raise our sea level to more
than 50% higher than the global average. If those estimates are correct, that means large portions
of Jones Beach will disappear by 2050, the north and south ends will become their own islands by
2080, and Fire Island will almost completely wash away by the end of the century.
 Page |9

Protecting Long Islanders’ homes from this kind of irreparable climate damage is possible – but
climate change is already costing taxpayers an arm and a leg. It is a cost that we should not have
to pay.

There’s a solution to this problem making its way through the New York State Legislature right
now - a plan that would take the burden off of taxpayers and put those who created this climate
catastrophe on the hook instead. That bill is the Climate Change Superfund Act. The act makes the
worst corporate climate polluters – Big Oil – pay. It should be on Albany’s “must do” list as we
head into the last days of the legislative session.

Just this year, New Yorkers statewide have been forced to pay around $800 million for projects
related to climate damages and resiliency projects. It’s only going to get worse.

The Long Island Regional Planning Council is projecting $75 to $100 billion out of taxpayers’
pockets for new roads and other infrastructure improvements, thanks to worsening storms and
sea level rise. That’s right – tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to elevate our streets (where they
have been washed away from intense storms), build new bridges, and upgrade our septic systems
and storm drains to protect them against future flooding.

Many of us who live on Long Island have already experienced this kind of flooding. We need this
infrastructure to protect against tragedies like Hurricane Sandy, which took 13 lives and damaged
or destroyed 100,000 homes. Suffolk County experienced seven natural disaster declarations in
the last decade — the most of any county in the state. And while we have to suffer and pay for
these consequences, Big Oil companies are getting richer.

The top Big Oil companies are on track for a second consecutive year of record profits. Across the
globe, Big Oil companies are performing much better than expected this year, following last year’s
record-breaking profits totaling $376 billion. These companies want you to believe that they’re
investing in clean and renewable energy sources. Don’t buy the smoke and mirrors.

They fund climate science denial while pushing greenwashing advertising. Big Oil wants us to

believe they have our wellbeing at heart, but their actions racked up a tab of $5.4 trillion in climate
damages worldwide over just 26 years. Even worse, they knew that they were driving the climate
catastrophe as early as the 1970s. And now, even after all of this has come to light, they evade any
sort of real accountability. 

We’re all impacted by climate change, but Black, Latino, Asian, and low-income communities bear
the brunt of it. Natural disasters aren’t just the weather themselves — they’re worsened by social,
political, and economic stressors. Low-income communities experience greater challenges
evacuating due to the cost of transportation and relocation. But when people stay, they experience
increased health risks including contaminated water and interrupted access to medical care and
food. On top of that, because of the increased risk of asthma, heart disease, and other chronic
health problems that low-income and communities of color experience (also because of
other environmental injustice), these communities are especially vulnerable to storm hazards. 
And of course, after the flood, cleanup is expensive and leads to increased debt, partly because
people in poverty are less likely to have flood insurance. According to the Urban Institute, after
four years, a medium-sized disaster causes a 31-point decline in credit scores for people living in
communities of color, whereas people living in white communities only experienced a 4-point
decline.
 P a g e | 10

On Long Island, we already know what it’s like to pay more than our fair share. We pay through
the nose in property taxes. And now we have to deal with the exponentially increasing risk of
flood damage to our homes because of a mess we didn’t make — on top of raised taxes for climate
change infrastructure? It’s criminal.

Experts have already proven that making polluters pay for their fare share of this mess won’t
result in those costs being passed onto consumers. We can’t afford to pay for climate change, and
we shouldn’t have to. Let’s make corporate climate polluters pay by passing the Climate Change
Superfund Act.

New packaging reduction measure unites environmentalists as time runs short

Marie J. French
Politico
June 5, 2023

ALBANY, N.Y. — Environmental groups that have sometimes been at odds are now on the same
page in support of a new version of a measure to reduce packaging waste, including plastic.
Now, it’s a race against the clock to overcome long odds for passage of the complex measure in the
next few days. Industry groups oppose the bill, citing changes and the lack of time for additional
input.

Why it matters: Waste contributes about 11 percent of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions that
must be dramatically reduced to achieve targets in the climate law. The climate action plan
recommended implementing extended producer responsibility to begin limiting the amount of
waste that ends up in landfills.

Details: In previous years, the lack of cohesion among environmentalists on an “extended producer

responsibility” measure has hamstrung the chances of passage. The bill sponsors, Environmental
Conservation Chairs Pete Harckham and Deborah Glick, appeared with the major environmental
advocates who have worked on the issue.

“Everybody up here deserves credit for compromise,” Harckham said at the press conference on
Monday. “There were two different philosophies that governed this bill for several years.”

That included Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, who pushed to keep the issue out of budget
negotiations, Adrienne Esposito with Citizens Campaign for the Environment and Pat McClellan
with New York League of Conservation Voters. The united support of these and other groups,
including Environmental Advocates NY, marks a significant step for the complicated issue.
The measure also has support from local governments, including New York City, who are currently
bearing the costs of recycling and waste disposal without any contribution from the producers of
consumer goods.

Amendments: Changes to the bill from previous versions include protections for existing waste
contracts; limitations on chemical recycling but an option to revisit the issue in three years;
including a “look back” period to give companies that have reduced packaging in recent years credit
and creating an advisory council to have input on chemicals that should be banned from packaging.
The measure also moves from multiple “producer responsibility organizations,” industry-led
groups tasked with tracking some information about packaging, charging fees and some other
responsibilities, to one and shifts some of those responsibilities from the organization to the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
 P a g e | 11

Industry opposition: The state’s leading business organization highlighted the changes to the role
of industry in a statement opposing the amended bill.

“This legislation will not just be costly to private sector employers but will result in increased
consumer costs and fewer choices for consumers,” said Ken Pokalsky, vice president of government
affairs for The Business Council of New York State, Inc. “Entire categories of packaging materials
will be restricted, and companies will change their offerings to respond to new state-specific
mandates and prohibitions, also hurting consumer options.”

The American Beverage Association also sent a statement opposing the amended bill, after some
members supported a version last session.

Harckham said industry would still have a role in the producer responsibility organization. Glick
said it made more sense to have a single organization rather than multiple organizations for each
industry.

“We felt that left too much room for individual choosing of what to pick as a pathway,” she said.
“This is an organization that will really be an accounting firm and having multiple accounting firms
is usually not a good thing.”

The bill also mandates reductions in materials used in packaging, phased in over several years,
while allowing some flexibility to DEC to adjust those provisions.

What’s next: There are three more scheduled days of session remaining, so there’s little time left
for supporters to make their case and get the measure on the end-of-session priority list.