Sen. Mark Walczyk

Argued the bill is ineffective because state-mandated charges comprising 30-50 percent of utility bills are excluded from the definition, and utility companies will raise rates through supply charges to recover mandated costs. Contended the bill would only reduce costs for vacant apartments and vacation homes, not provide real relief for New Yorkers.

The bill removes "economically reasonable" from statute without justification, incorporates outdated lighting standards irrelevant to safety, and accelerates code adoption timelines tied to the CLCPA without considering costs. This will increase housing and construction costs in New York State during an existing housing shortage.

Argued the bill mandates what utility companies already do and fails to address energy affordability or reduce costs. Noted utilities are holding $1.8 billion in arrears and stated the bill does not help solve the underlying problem.

Voted against the bill.

The bill is ineffective because a 1 percent foreign ownership threshold will do little to eliminate foreign money from New York politics. The legislation is partisan and ignores the actual dark money loophole in the political system while imposing felony charges on businesses with minimal foreign investment.

The bill will create voter confusion by announcing new polling locations only four days before early voting begins, undermining public confidence in election stability. It will also impose costs on local municipalities or the state without improving affordability for New Yorkers, and raises unresolved questions about compliance with Article 265 gun-free zone requirements.

Argued the bill is an unfunded mandate and a solution in search of a problem, as counties did not request it. Raised concerns about who would pay for travel and training costs if the State Board determines in-person training is required.

The bill creates an improper benefit for wealthy New Yorkers by allowing them to vote at vacation homes rather than their primary residence. The explicit inclusion of "vacation home" in the bill demonstrates intent to enable double voting—voting in different elections at different residences—which undermines the principle that voters should vote where they actually live.

He raised concerns about the bill's vague definition of intimidation and how it could expose voters and election inspectors to civil suits for routine questioning or asking for identification. He questioned how address protections would allow validation of poll worker residency requirements and expressed concern about transparency in elections.

The bill grants the Attorney General broad powers to destroy small businesses lacking legal resources to defend themselves, extends jurisdiction nationwide without clear nexus requirements, and allows the AG to pick winners and losers in business disputes without meaningful oversight.

The bill removes incentives for PBMs to negotiate lower drug costs and may have the unintended consequence of increasing costs for employees, particularly those in school districts which opposed the bill. Concerns that costs will ultimately be passed to consumers and small business employees.

Criticized the bill as rushed legislation only three days old and questioned why redistricting was necessary without clear demographic analysis. Noted the Unified Court System and Onondaga County Bar Association urged deferral to the next session. Accused the majority of judge shopping and stacking courts, arguing that if they cannot win elections, they are forcing favorable courts to make decisions on elections.

Criticized the bill for stacking the Commission on Corrections with partisan appointments in violation of the Constitution, extending the statute of limitations for prisoner lawsuits, and failing to address staff shortages or officer safety concerns. Called for secure vendor programs, drug screening for visitors, HALT repeal, and listening to corrections officers.

Raised concerns about grid reliability and capacity, noting NYISO warnings about blackout risks. Questioned whether the bill adequately addresses the 514 current power outages and cited zero deaths from gas service loss versus 28 percent mortality increase during blackouts. Challenged the bill's definition of 'affordable' and who bears infrastructure costs.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Voted against the bill; specific reasons for opposition not stated in transcript.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Raised concerns about prefrontal cortex development at age 25 versus 18 eligibility, lack of required in-person physician visits, insufficient mental health evaluation, and potential for chronic conditions to qualify if treatment is refused.

Argued the bill could allow noise complaints from "jilted lovers" to trigger mandatory gun confiscation, potentially depriving New Yorkers of Second Amendment rights. Contended that existing law already allows police to arrest, separate, and protect victims, and expressed concerns the bill could remove firearms owned by victims or complainants themselves.

Questioned whether mental anguish and pain and suffering are adequately defined in the bill and whether every ratepayer experiencing bill shock could claim mental anguish. Argued the bill is part of an affordability package that won't actually reduce energy costs and that New York's high rates stem from regulatory environment and policies, not utility greed. Noted New York's residential electricity rates are 40 percent higher than Pennsylvania's.

The bill will spook the much larger U.S. corporate debt markets, is unilateral action on a global issue better suited for G20 forums, and could benefit hostile foreign actors like Russia and China. It contradicts the principle of honoring financial contracts and will force the financial sector out of state, costing New York $20 billion in annual revenue.

Raised concerns about food safety seals, PVC in water delivery systems, and Saran Wrap ban. Questioned whether markets for recycled materials will develop and noted 5-10 year USDA approval timelines for new packaging, making 12-year goals unrealistic.

He questioned the scientific basis for banning PFAS in paint, noting that fluoropolymers are considered low toxicity, non-bioavailable, and non-water soluble by the federal government. He raised concerns about economic impact on the $870 million paint market, potential consumer migration to neighboring states, and whether the ban would force use of older paint technology with higher emissions.

Opposed the bill on grounds that the New York State Board of Regents should not have authority to dictate which books local public libraries place on their shelves.

Criticized the Sustainable Futures Program as a $1 billion taxpayer investment that will not reduce energy bills and lacks clarity on megawatt output. Noted that highway funding programs (Extreme Winter Recovery, State Touring Route, PAVE NY, Pave Our Potholes, BRIDGE NY) remained flat while CHIPS received only $50 million increase. Argued the budget prioritizes NYC ($1 billion for City of Yes, $3 billion for MTA) over local roads and bridges.

Opposed the $700 million film tax credit continuation, citing poor return on investment of 31 cents per dollar. Argued the funds should be redirected to CHIPS, COLA increases for ARCs, soil conservation, EMS services, and other community programs.

Questioned the constitutional basis under Article VII Section 8 and Public Officers Law Section 74, noted the bill bypassed normal three-day aging requirements and was introduced only within the past week, and highlighted that the provision covers actions outside official employment with vague 'reasonably likely' standards for determining political motivation.

Opposed removal of nurse licensure compact and EMS essential services designation, noting 43 states have the compact and EMS services are critically understaffed.

Questioned how the bill would be enforced against foreign manufacturers and online retailers, noted that 30% of mattresses sold in the U.S. are foreign-made, raised concerns about international trade dumping issues, and criticized the lack of a defined consumer cost despite the bill's requirement that programs be 'free to the consumer.'

He argued the bill allows 25 customers to trigger investigations that could prevent utilities from collecting revenue for 15 months, exacerbating the $1.3 billion in existing arrears. He contended the real problem is state energy policy (CLCPA) driving up costs, not utilities, and questioned how utilities can function without collecting revenue.

Raised security concerns about applying the opt-out requirement to high-security facilities including data centers, chip manufacturers, nuclear power plants, airports, banks, and pharmaceutical research facilities. Questioned how security protocols could function if employees could opt out of biometric scanning.

Questioned whether private businesses, state-funded colleges, and major employers receiving government investment would be eligible locations, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. Noted that a bipartisan group of election commissioners does not support this bill and urged the chamber to listen to election officials rather than make frequent changes to election law.

College students with no other connection to a community should not oversee election integrity at poll sites. He raised concerns that the Board of Elections lacks mechanisms to verify citizenship, particularly given New York City's efforts to register noncitizens and reports of immigration lawyers requesting voter roll removals.

Destiny USA's 26 million annual visitors provide superior exposure for the Taste NY program and state agricultural products. The relocation process lacked input from Central New York municipalities and counties, and the move risks losing a valuable tenant partnership with the state. The Heritage Center does not receive comparable visitor traffic to justify the relocation.

Walczyk questioned whether the bill adequately defines abusive conduct and bullying, citing Governor Hochul's prior veto message on similar legislation. He pressed on whether the bill would require the Department of Corrections to separate violent inmates from staff and whether existing definitions in statute are sufficient.

Questioned the bill's funding source, noting that if RGGI funds are unavailable, NYSERDA might need to use systems benefit charges paid by ratepayers. Challenged the exclusion of corded electric devices and individual homeowners, arguing both are better for the environment than gas equipment and should be included if the goal is reducing emissions and noise pollution.

He cited the Comptroller and NYSERDA's $340 billion CLCPA cost estimate, calculating it as $177,000 per capita over 25 years. He characterized the bill as a joke regarding affordability.

Raised concerns about the expanded timeframe (2000-2024 vs. 2000-2018) increasing assessments, questioned exemptions for foreign government-owned entities like Saudi Aramco and PetroChina, and noted over 60% of NY electricity currently depends on fossil fuels.

Argued the Legislature is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and should not consolidate power away from the people. Invoked New York's historical rejection of autocratic rule and the principle that government closer to the people serves them better.

Walczyk argued the bill represents hyperpartisan policy that erodes decentralized principles, increases ballot length to 25 candidates, diminishes focus on local issues, and disrespects the judiciary as a coequal branch. He contended the amendment to restore local elections to odd-numbered years was germane and would rectify harmful changes to New York's electoral system.

Raised extensive security concerns about the lack of specific safeguards in the bill, including no surveillance requirements, no mechanism to prevent multiple ballot submissions, no identification marking to distinguish drop box ballots from mailed ballots, and no written security measures. Argued the bill allows someone to drop as many ballots as they have access to without surveillance while polls are open, eroding confidence in elections.

Conducted extensive questioning challenging why large donors should receive taxpayer matches, arguing the changes contradict the original grassroots intent and citing New York Times criticism that the amendments protect incumbents and discourage challengers.

Questioned the bill's lack of support from local government associations and county officials, noted it bypassed the Elections Committee, and argued it undermines local autonomy and encourages voters to focus on federal issues rather than understanding distinct local government concerns.

The utility rate design is carefully crafted by the PSC to achieve a balanced approach providing fundamental fairness for all customers, and this bill would undo that balance.

Raised concerns that out-of-town attorneys could intimidate voters and poll workers unfamiliar with them. Questioned whether attorneys need election law expertise and noted the bill allows political committees to pay attorneys without caps. Argued this represents a significant departure from local grassroots poll watching and could make voters uncomfortable.

Raised concerns that the absentee ballot cure process allows acceptance of unpostmarked ballots received up to seven days after Election Day without requiring voters to attest they mailed them before polls closed. Argued this creates a loophole allowing ballots mailed after polls close to be counted, undermining election integrity and public trust.

Sen. Walczyk voted in opposition to the bill.

Voted in the negative on the measure.

The bill shifts costs of utility billing failures to ratepayers rather than utilities and does nothing to address rising energy costs. He questioned whether the two-year lookback for historical usage data is appropriate for new commercial tenants with different usage patterns, and argued the Legislature should not micromanage the PSC's regulatory role.

While well-intentioned, allowing any individual to report could inundate utilities with calls during emergencies, including reports of non-power lines. The bill could also expose utilities to calls from non-residents or foreign entities seeking to cause chaos, undermining the current system of municipal emergency official prioritization.

Raised multiple concerns: the advisory board should be consulted before the bill is written, not after; the closed-loop targets may require retailers to stock 40% used mattresses with required labels; potential conflict with General Business Law Section 389-a; and questioned why the bill doesn't simply adopt the proven models already working in other states.

Voted against the bill.

Voted in the negative on the measure.

Raised concerns about the estimated $5 million cost with no budget appropriation, inconsistency between the bill memo stating no cost and the sponsor's estimate. Argued it is dangerous for government to define which campaign issues are most important, stating this violates representative democracy principles where voters and constituents should drive campaign focus. Questioned the practical implementation of distributing materials to individual household members and expressed skepticism about the need for election day reminders.

Voted against the bill.

Opposed the bill on grounds that allowing any impacted party to sue creates excessive litigation risk that will increase legal costs, which park owners will pass to residents through higher rents. He argued this discourages investment in parks and harms the very residents the bill intends to protect, and that real estate deals need less red tape, not more.

Criticized elimination of American Legion Boys State funding (zero funding since 2018), noting the program's historical importance in educating youth about civics and its alumni including George Pataki, Neil Armstrong, and Bill Clinton.

Criticized the $229 billion budget as excessive spending with insufficient accountability and responsibility. Raised specific concerns about Judiciary cost overruns, wasteful spending by former leadership, and lack of measures to address court backlogs and case disposition rates.

Objected to $14 million in Public Campaign Finance Board staff funding, calculating it costs $2.50 per voter plus $35 million in tax increases for public campaign financing, totaling $8.75 per voter. Voted against the budget on behalf of 'outraged New Yorkers' opposed to taxpayer-funded political campaigns.

Criticized the $200 million EmPower Plus program for not addressing electrical infrastructure upgrades needed for electrification, noting 53% of NY housing stock predates 1950s and lacks 200-amp service required for electric appliances. Argued the program doesn't go far enough to support the electrification goals being promoted.

Criticized budget for failing EMS providers on multiple fronts: rejecting training programs, removing mobile integrated healthcare language, denying Medicaid rate reform and direct pay options, and failing to designate EMS as essential in law.

Criticized the $700 million film tax credit expansion and the new 'eligible relocated television series' provision, arguing it appears designed for specific productions regardless of success. Opposed the wind and solar assessment methodology that strips local control and hurts school districts and fire departments in upstate New York.

Criticized the lack of transparency and public hearings (last held March 1st), arguing the Senate is asking to increase the state's credit limit without knowing what will be spent. Characterized the authorization as spending other people's money and assuming debt on behalf of future generations without a spending plan.

The program will increase electricity bills for all New Yorkers through system benefits charges while subsidizing products with lithium-ion batteries that pose fire hazards, lacks accountability safeguards compared to the Drive Clean program, and could allow out-of-state residents to benefit from New York ratepayers' money.

Argued the bill would dangerously eliminate backup generators required in rural areas, potentially force tree cutting in forest preserves like the Adirondack Park to install transmission lines, and threaten emergency services connectivity when power outages occur.

Argued the bill directly conflicts with Environmental Conservation Law Article 5, which designates reforestation lands for growing forests, not solar production. Cited SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry research showing forests offset 15% of U.S. annual carbon emissions and that converting forests to other uses loses stored carbon. Contended the Climate Action Council's scoping plan emphasizes forest preservation and carbon sequestration, not solar development on reforestation lands, and questioned why solar should be prioritized over brownfields or rooftops.

Walczyk conducted extensive questioning on the bill's language, particularly the distinction between "purchase" and "acquire" of renewable facilities, raising concerns about potential government seizure of private assets without compensation. He questioned the lack of NYPA involvement in drafting, the mandate to shut down peaker plants by 2031 regardless of grid readiness, and the undefined cost increases to ratepayers through systems benefit charges.

In his floor statement, Walczyk characterized the bill as a "socialist and communist takeover" of the electrical grid. He noted opposition from NYPA itself, solar and wind industry groups, and independent power producers. He criticized the expansion of NYPA's board from 7 to 17 trustees with guaranteed Democratic appointees, and argued the state should instead incentivize private development, eliminate regulatory hurdles, and accept alternative energy sources like nuclear and biomass.

Voted in the negative on the bill.

Sen. Walczyk voted in the negative on the bill.

Questioned why public hearing requirements were removed when the original bill passed in May 2022 but was not sent to the Governor until December 2022, missing the July deadline for public hearings. Argued the amendment eliminates direct community engagement on land acquisitions that will affect local areas.

Questioned the basis for the staffing formula and noted the bill was not requested by the Association of Counties or supported by any county resolutions. Criticized the majority party for making frequent rule changes while holding supermajorities, comparing it unfavorably to NFL rule-making.

Objected to the narrow qualifications and the December 31, 2024 deadline occurring during an election year when the Senate is up for reelection. Argued the current system has worked well for over 200 years and that changing Election Law requirements could undermine public confidence in elections by suggesting current commissioners are unqualified.

Questioned why the Legislature should assume this role from the elected Governor, raised concerns about undefined standards and thresholds for removal, and warned that creating a quick administrative process could set a dangerous precedent for removing commissioners based on partisan motivations rather than genuine misconduct.

The bill is an unfunded mandate that makes no sense for rural counties like Hamilton County with only 5,119 residents and 4,600 registered voters. The legislation was not requested by any of New York's 62 counties and has not been supported by the New York State Association of Counties, making a one-size-fits-all approach inappropriate.

Argued the bill appears designed to benefit Democratic voters by placing portable sites in areas of population density like college campuses, which tend to vote Democratic. Stated the legislation is politically motivated and encouraged colleagues to vote no.

Questioned whether SUNY and CUNY publicly support the bill and whether the Governor's office supports it. Argued the bill misses an opportunity to include private institutions and colleges with expertise in polling and elections, and expressed concern about the $2 million fiscal impact without adequate advance notice to stakeholders.

The bill fails to address significant voter distrust in drop boxes and creates a problematic precedent by allowing ballot submission until polls close, when campaigns can track which voters have already voted, potentially creating opportunities for fraud perception and voter disenfranchisement.

Questioned whether the Office of Court Administration requested the change and whether the Attorney General had issued an opinion on constitutionality. Argued the bill violates the oath to uphold the Constitution and creates unequal access to courts, forcing rural voters to travel hours while urban voters have local access.