There does not seem to be any limit to how far New York State’s left wing will go in the name of climate-change extremism. Since the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was passed in 2019, Albany Democrats have been racing to completely overhaul the state’s energy grid with little consideration given to the real-world impacts on New Yorkers.

In a “shoot-ready-aim” approach to environmental policy, they have placed enormous restrictions on how families will be able to heat their homes, banned the use of gas stoves and appliances in new construction, and now the New York City Department of Environmental Protection has proposed banning coal-and-wood-fired ovens used in some of the city’s most successful restaurants — most notably their historic pizza parlors. 

The entire impetus for this rushed and radical climate agenda is to reduce carbon emissions — a noble goal — however, it ignores the reality that New York is only responsible for 3 percent of emissions here in the U.S. and 0.4 percent of emissions globally. Considering one city official cited by the New York Post article covering the plan estimates the most recent oven ban would impact fewer than 100 restaurants, we are talking about fractions of fractions of emissions. The costs to these businesses, which will be forced to completely reinvent their business model and install and maintain expensive new equipment, will be far more significant.

What Democrats are doing to New York’s power grid amounts to tearing down a bridge before a new one is built. It makes sense to diversify our energy portfolio and bring renewable sources online over time. But unilaterally eliminating traditional, reliable, and proven energy sources is a dangerous and costly decision. 

Not surprisingly, the issue of “cost” is becoming more of a concern as renewable projects start to advance. It is being reported that a trade group representing renewable-energy developers and the builders of a clean-energy transmission line have asked for more money from state grants to complete their work. Citing the rising costs associated with inflation, the Alliance for Clean Energy NY says that a number of “green” projects will not be completed without more up-front money from the state. Anyone who has seen their utility bill rise in the past year knows it’s the consumer who ends up paying the bill when energy projects get more expensive.

 New York’s power grid calls for a diverse portfolio that guarantees reliable, affordable energy. The path we are on now does not do that, and policies like the one proposed in New York City do much more harm than good. Elected officials have a responsibility to develop solutions to ensure a healthy environment and a robust economy. Those two considerations are not mutually exclusive, despite what the New York progressives would have you believe. A proposed ban on coal-and-wood-fired stoves is nothing more than a misguided gimmick that has no place in our state.     

William (Will) A. Barclay, 54, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses all of Oswego County, as well as parts of Jefferson and Cayuga counties.

There is a reason the founders started with Congress when they created the blueprint for our representative democracy. It’s the institution closest to the American people.

This isn’t just political theory. For all their faults, members of Congress throughout our history have tried to stay close to and understand their constituents. They still do. More than any other branch of government, Congress reflects the feelings of the diverse and ever-evolving population of the United States — even if, with population shifts boosting rural power in the Senate these days and gerrymandering affecting House districts, the proportions are out of whack.

So, one of the more puzzling aspects of the evolution of power in Washington, D.C. has been the extent to which Congress has sat by over the decades while its strength has ebbed. For the most part, we think of this in terms of its relations with the presidency, with everything from war powers to budget-making to an increasing reliance on executive orders putting presidents of both parties in an ever-stronger position to set and steer the national agenda.

But recently, CNN’s Zachary Wolf drew attention to a similar process taking place vis-à-vis the Supreme Court. The mechanisms are different, but the result is the same: Congress loses room to maneuver.

Wolf was actually delving into a recently published book by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, called “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.” Vladeck’s chief concern is what for the last few years has come to be called the “shadow docket” — referring to cases that are not formally heard by the Court, with oral arguments and then long written decisions and dissents, but instead are generally unsigned orders that arrive without explanation.

They can be quite consequential. As Vladeck explained to Wolf in their interview, the Supreme Court last year intervened in redistricting cases in Alabama and Louisiana in such a way that it “helped to give the Republicans the majority they currently have in the House.” It did so in 2020 and 2021 as well, especially to address cases involving COVID regulations. The Court’s power, Vladeck points out, lies not just in its decisions, but in choosing which of the many issues arriving on its doorstep it will decide.

 In fact, that’s not just true of cases on the shadow docket. Until about a century ago, the Supreme Court was required to decide on any case under its jurisdiction. That, Vladeck argues, “made it a lot harder for the justices to have an agenda. It made it a lot harder for the justices to target particular disputes and look around for cases.” The reason the Court can now pick and choose — and hence steer the national agenda — is because Congress gave it the power to do so, especially with the 1988 Supreme Court Case Selections Act, which granted the Court full authority over whether to hear appeals from Circuit Court decisions. So, the Supreme Court chooses which 80 or so cases it will hear out of the 5,000-7,000 it is asked to review each term.

To be sure, it’s hardly the case that the Supreme Court has avoided precedent-setting decisions in the past — dating all the way back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the Court gave itself the power of judicial review over executive and legislative decisions. Still, if you think about our recent political history — especially around abortion — you can see Vladeck’s point: The Court does not reflect the thinking of a majority of Americans.

 For members of Congress who would rather not have to cast unpopular votes on controversial issues that could cost them a seat, having the White House or the Supreme Court make those decisions can be handy. But as Vladeck argues, “When we look at the Court today — at the ethics issues, the docket issues, the legitimacy debates — a lot of what’s going on here is a court that’s just not remotely checked and not worrying about being checked.” Congress historically had the authority to exercise control over the Court’s ability to set the agenda, he insists, and there’s no reason it can’t again. The balance of power in Washington, D.C. demands it.              

Lee Hamilton, 92, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.