Asm. Scott Gray

Argued existing regulatory processes already address the bill's concerns: the PSC's Energize NY proceeding examines ratepayer protection and cost allocation, and the NYISO interconnection process plus utility engineering work already creates a 2.5+ year timeline before construction. Contended the one-year moratorium is irrelevant given these existing delays. Criticized the bill for focusing only on negative impacts while ignoring positive economic benefits including construction jobs, permanent employment, tax base expansion, and local development—benefits typically handled by IDAs and local agencies.

Questioned feasibility and cost of meeting two-hour response times, noting utilities report substantial additional costs and that crews may need to be called in or placed on standby. Sought clarification on whether costs would be recoverable and whether the bill adequately distinguishes emergency from non-emergency situations.

Gray argued that voting for the bill signals support for data centers and their expansion, and questioned how the offset mechanism would function geographically, whether it would impact power purchase agreements, and how benefits would be distributed to communities versus authorities.

Argued the bill is a framework without substance that defers all decisions to the PSC, lacks defined cost parameters or performance metrics, and may violate the Commerce Clause. Questioned whether the PSC already has authority to implement these requirements and whether the bill contradicts other data center policies like proposed bans.

Argued the bill creates a framework without substance, lacks defined offset costs, performance metrics, or sunset provisions. Questioned whether PSC already possesses authority to implement these requirements and raised concerns about potential Commerce Clause constitutional challenges and reduced competitiveness versus neighboring states.